Its Got No Teeth ...
 

The following was just announced this weekend at the IAABO Fall Seminar, which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

To prepare for the IAABO Fall Seminar, the four IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, one of whom has served on the most recent NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, and who will continue to serve on the committee, met with Lindsey Atkinson, the new NFHS rules editor for basketball, on September 23, 2021.

The continuing validity of old Points of Emphasis, vanished casebook plays, and annual one-time only interpretations (with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such), was discussed.

Ms. Atkinson stated that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS. She also stated that usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new caseplay goes in, one usually has to come out.

Ms. Atkinson announced that a statement regarding the continued validity of old vanished interpretations (with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such), will probably be printed in the beginning of the NFHS Casebook starting in 2022-23.

However, Ms. Atkinson stated that the NFHS did not have the resources to “resurrect” such interpretations, begging the question, how are inexperienced officials (and trainers) supposed to know about such?

IAABO has put out "feelers" offering to work with the NFHS to “resurrect” such interpretations, but no final plan has been approved.

Nice announcement. Good to know the official position of the NFHS, but practically speaking, its got no teeth.

The same was also stated at the NFHS State Rules Interpreters meeting.

There, the reason given was publishing limits...that they have a target number of pages in the books. She said that, for every case they add, something has to come out. So, they try to pick ones that are not as likely to be needed.

Old cases remain valid unless there has been a rule change or a new interpretation that negates the old case.

In this digital age, I can't see why they can't have an unabridged version of the case book available on the app including all valid case with an abridged version in print to include a target number.

All of them for the past 20 years or so are on this website. ti's not that hard to "resurrect"them.

Scissors And Glue ...
 

The Forum has annual interpretations (not sure if they go all the way back to the NFHS first issuing such).

It doesn't have still valid caseplays that, due to space limitations, have disappeared from NFHS Casebooks over the years.

Even if there was such a database (casebook plays and annual interpretations), one would have to go through each one to see if rule changes, or interpretation changes, have made such interpretations invalid.

One would have to look for slightly different wording, and then select the most updated worded version.

Go back far enough and these interpretations are printed on dead trees, not in a cut and paste digital format, but in an actual cut and paste format, using a scissors and some glue.

I know that there are scanners and programs that can turn the "printed word' into a digital format, but it would still need extensive editing.

Certainly not an impossible task, but not an easy one either.

Good job for a summer intern at the NFHS, or maybe for Nevadaref, after all, he's the "Interpretation King".

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cart...cn1544_low.jpg

Independent Of The NFHS ...
 

One of the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, the one now serving on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, is considering forming a committee of IAABO members to collect and edit such interpretations, and has asked me to volunteer if such a committee is formed.

I have agreed to help out if IAABO decides to move in that direction.

Sounds very labor intensive, and very boring, but it may be a worth while endeavor.

So these are interpretations for IAABO people, not for the rest of the country that never was a member of IAABO?

Does us no good.

Peace

Collaboration ...
 

While the NFHS fully supports the idea of a searchable database of such interpretations, it claims it doesn't have the resources to collect and edit these interpretations.

Over the past few years (but not always) IAABO has had a very close working relationship with the NFHS. If IAABO decides to independently do the "heavy lifting", I'm pretty sure that the searchable database generated would be shared with the NFHS.

I've already shared my Word Documents (similar to what's already on the Forum but better organized and formatted) of twenty-five years of NFHS Annual Interpretations (1996-97 through 2020-21) with the IAABO Co-Coordinator of Interpreters now serving on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, who is trying get this project off the ground.

Twenty-five years of NFHS Annual Interpretations is a good start, and the digital format makes it easy to edit.

The collection and editing of casebook interpretations will probably be a more difficult endeavor, not being sure how far back digitally formatted casebook interpretations go before one bumps into the "printed word".

The NFHS wants this done. IAABO wants this done. Who knows? Maybe it will get done? Or maybe it won't?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.K...=0&w=273&h=182

So does that mean the NF will approve all those interpretations or will this be an IAABO thing that they will not cross-check? So if something contradicts current rules basis on something done 18 years ago, who is going to make sure we are not giving contradictory information?

I find that rather funny that the NF does not have resources to simply put out information they previously published, but can put out other publications in their name and sell that content. Sound like something they just do not want to do or causes them issues if something contradicts current information.

Peace

Making A List, Checking It Twice ...
 

To start, it will be up to the IAABO committee formed (if it is formed) for this purpose to separate vanished, but still valid interpretations; from those vanished because they are no longer valid interpretations.

Hopefully this will be double checked by the NFHS before being "published".

Will there be errors? With, or without, the input of NFHS, of course there will errors, but these will eventually be weeded out.

Even with errors, it's still better than what we have now with the official position of the NFHS that, as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

Without a database, that leaves us with a Wild Wild West scenario, with local interpreters (trainers), or state interpreters (trainers), IAABO affiliated, or not IAABO affiliated, making individual and unilateral decisions about the validity of a vanished interpretations, deciding individually and unilaterally whether relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, have occurred.

I do too, but it's a labor intensive endeavor. The collection of old ("previously published") interpretations is the easy part, it's the editing for continued validly that's the hard part. And don't forget, the NFHS covers about two dozen different sports.

Lindsey Atkinson, the new NFHS rules editor for basketball, stated that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

She stated this not only to IAABO, but to other organizations (according to Camron Rust) as well.

It appears that Ms. Atkinson, and the NFHS, is willing to talk the talk, but is not willing to walk the walk, choosing theory over practice.

So do we believe in her support of this concept? Time will tell.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vj2e1m7Hlg...74416272_4.jpg

Until they make something available to all officials, coaches, and players, then that is what will cause the confusion. Not the fact that something might have been used and never make it to the Case book, but the fact that it could be forgotten or overlooked and no place to confirm. Not sure why they just do not put all interpretations that are current in the casebook.

Peace

The Wild Wild West ...
 

Agree, thus my reference to the Wild Wild West.

But at least we now know that vanished interpretations can't be considered to be invalid solely because they are no longer the current book, there has to be some other reason, a rule change, or an interpretation change.

We can no longer use the argument, "It's not in the book", to ignore a vanished interpretation, rather, we have to point to a specific rule change, or a specific interpretation change.

Are we in a better place?

Already stated.

If old interpretations disappear, then follow the rules and case plays as written. If they are open to interpretation, then organizations/localities need to decide how to handle the situations.

I really don't think it's that serious.

It's Not In The Book ...
 

Sounds like a rational plan.

All that's really changed is that we can no longer utilize the, "It's not in the book", argument.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WhK91DZn-U8/hqdefault.jpg

Yeah you can. We are not having this conversation where everyone has this announced to them regardless of jurisdiction. So yes, it does apply if you have an interpretation in 2001 and we are in 2021 and someone was not aware of such interpretation. Again, if they want that interpretation to apply, it is better to list them somewhere for all to see or they will get different applications.

Peace

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat ...
 

No you can't.

Well, you actually can, but you can't and be right.

One may be ignorant regarding the NFHS announcement, but once pointed out, "It's not in the book", is no longer a valid response for ignoring a vanished interpretation for that single reason, one now needs to back it up with a rule change, or a interpretation change.

Agree, my Wild Wild West scenario.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat.../ignorance.jpg

You can quote yourself in this discussion all you like Billy, but the point is that you must make the information available or you are risking that everyone involved will not be aware of previous interpretations. Again, I do not work with or am an IAABO member. I work for two different states that do not necessarily follow each other and their procedures. So if the state associations are not aware of such information (and they may not be) then we are flying blind to the wills of the NF if they have something else in mind. When you contact the NF they often send you back to your state association for an interpretation. So if they wish to have that interpretation the NF puts out, then you have to make that information readily available. Us talking here does not change that fact. Again most people never will know we even had this conversation or the information you just put out. For all we know there might be some facts missing, meaning there have been different conversations, or what your group might help with is never done. Until we all are made very clear that some interpretation 5, 10, or 20 years ago was published, we might not be aware of its impact and will do what is already listed or what was instructed. And based on previous information, states had all the power in interpretations of how to handle things not clearly stated. That would be a total change regards to what we are talking about here.

Again, stand by my position as to how it works. Also, the law is published and there are places to find out where a ruling has been taking place. Often interpretations are not very well known or somewhat of a secret. That is the issue here for me, not what the intentions might be.

Peace

NFHS Basketball Rules Editor ...
 

I was paraphrasing the new NFHS rules editor for basketball.

One can solely say, "It's not in the book", and be correct in one's local area, or state, but don't count on the NFHS to back you up.

The NFHS will back you up if you say, "This vanished interpretation is no longer correct because rule XXX changed", or "because X.X.X changed the vanished interpretation".

But "It's not in the book" alone will no longer cut the mustard.

No matter how much you may want to put your own definitions and criteria to this matter, if something is LITERALLY NOT IN THE BOOK, then "it's not in the book" is a true and factual statement. Vanished interpretations do not float in a cloud over the court for us to grab in the middle of a game.

I do not work for the NF and the NF does not give me games or any assignments whatsoever. So not worried about what they would back me up with. They are not the people I ever have to answer to. In one state we never take any NF tests. So why would someone like me care in that situation?

Exactly!!!!

Peace

...in your Little Corner of Connecticut.

Not sure how you can speak for others and their situations.

I'm trying to figure out whom exactly I would be having a conversation with in which the phrase "the vanished interpretation says...." is made. :confused:

I've never had the NFHS come in and "back me up" before. What does that look like?

Literally Not In The Book ...
 

Agree, but "It's not in the book" can no longer be the sole reason to ignore or disregard vanished interpretations when one is made aware of them. One needs additional references.

Citations ...
 

It looks like a NFHS rulebook or NFHS casebook citations.

Ignored ...
 

True, but it doesn't mean that the NFHS basketball rules editor hasn't ruled as we have been discussing.

So it will be listed directly in the published books? If the answer is no, then what are we talking about here?

Peace

Again I do not work for this person. And unless there is something they are putting out so that all can see, then they are sending a message in a bottle and hoping it goes across the ocean to land.

Peace

Difference Between Being Tripped And Tripping ...
 

This is the one that sticks out in my mind.

10.6.1 Situation E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down (vanished from casebook in 2005-06).

Could be conversation with another official, or possibly a coach.

Citation Please ...
 

So where and when was it announced that vanished interpretations are no longer valid?

Well, if it's an active publication, why would I need to the NFHS come in and "back me up". I just say "it's in the rule book/case book" or "the NFHS put out an interpretation for this play for the 2021-22 season".

I think delusions about what the NFHS does, especially in-season.

"BillyMac on social media said that Lindsay Atkinson said...."

Yeah, that's the way to earn a reputation as a "rules guy", relying on and passing along 3rd and 4th-hand conversations.

Paper Pages ...
 

If by published you mean all valid interpretations printed in a book with paper pages, then probably not.

The idea of a searchable digital file has been discussed, but it definitely won't be the NFHS that initially builds this database. If built, I hope that the NFHS would publish it (online), and that it not be only made available to IAABO members.

Where was it published that they are?

Again, if it's not in the current publications, then ambiguous rules are subject to local interpretations as long as those local interpretations don't contradict the rule or case book.

That's a reality of life that your proclamations will not change.

It Was a Very Good Year ...
 

Or the NFHS put out an interpretation (caseplay or annual) for this play in 2015, and has stated that old interpretations are still officially valid if there haven't been any relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, and there haven't been in this situation.

Announced ...
 

I said announced, not published.

I'm in a brick locker room with no Wi-Fi access having a pre-game with 2 newer officials, so I'm not saying something stupid like that.

So my answer to a coach who just had his AC look up a rule or my commissioner or my rules interpreter is that "BillyMac on Officiating.com told us that Ms. Atkinson said, errr ummm, I mean announced..."

Is that how things are done in Your Little Corner?

And a coach would say to me, "Who and who???"

Peace

Pants On Fire ...
 

Valid point. Don't believe me, or don't believe Camron Rust, if you don't want to, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't announced.

I have never spoken face to face with any NFHS basketball rules editor, but I tend to believe what other reliable sources tell me was announced.

Maybe we're both conspiring to yank everybody's chain and bust everybody's balls. Just one big practical joke.

Maybe somebody will soon post that I'm a liar.

Why would I do that? Is that my modus operandi on the Forum?

What Do I Have To Gain ???
 

Another valid point, but why would I, or Camron Rust, post false information?

Missing the point. Just simply saying it needs to be somewhere we can verify it came from the NF or we will be flying blind on that interpretation. Remember you said a certain interpretation applied and it did not to most of us. It is not about believing anyone, it is what we can verify to those we are discussing the issue locally.

Peace

So my commissioner or an upset coach is supposed to take the words of anonymous internet personalities that a ruling is or isn't correct? I'm supposed to draft an official response to an AD and reference this website as the authority that guides our interpretations?

Do you realize that 99% of HS officials have no idea what this site is? What would make this a more valid reference point than any of the multiple Facebook officiating groups that are out there? What would make any non-sanctioned NFHS social media site a valid reference point?

I guess this where me working my entire adult life for the military (I'm 57) separates my reality from Billy's.

Where I work and have worked since January of 1983, we don't get to say "well, Sgt. Billy said it's a regulation". We actually have to produce official documentation to back our position or to tell someone THEY HAVE TO do something. "Show it to me in the reg" has teeth, "I used to work with a Colonel who said..." means nothing.

Be Prepared ...
 

Another good point.

Look guys, I'm not saying the anybody here has to jump the gun. All I'm saying is that it's coming down the pike. Might even take a full year to show up in written form.

At this point we all know that the NFHS has never announced that annual interpretations and vanished caseplays have a statute of limitations.

Also, the idea that old vanished interpretations (with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such) are still valid has never been published by the NFHS, and has never been made known to any of you by any source more reliable than Camron Rust or BillyMac.

Don't believe me? Fine. Don't believe Camron Rust? Fine.

Why would we lie, or mislead? Why would our sources mislead us?

Don't put any of this into action this year. I get it. I would do the same and not put something like this into action before checking with my local interpreter.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.F...=0&w=215&h=173

I do not know what the NF has said. Don't care. I do know there have been rules changes and information in the casebook that clarified a situation of that new rule based on the change (BC Violations for example). Don't care what has a statute of limitations, but would like to know if something has changed. You said that the elbow situation was standing and there was never a rule stating that was even valid in any rulebook. It was a POE that addressed a very specific situation and then was never spoken of again by the body that put out that interpretation. Just saying, we go by publishing literature, not innuendo and people from several states away (which both you and Cameron are to me). No one knows who you are, so referencing you does not help me here. And I live in the relative backyard of the NF.

Peace

Coming Down The Pike ...
 

Good point. All I'm saying it that it's coming, no need to act on it until it's "published" in some manner.

I got it from somebody who spoke directly, face to face, to Lindsey Atkinson. Somebody who announced it to over two hundred IAABO members, many whom are interpreters, who will take this announcement back to their local boards. Second hand (not third or fourth) knowledge from somebody who is much respected in the IAABO organization, and somebody I trust.

You don't know me. You don't know him. Neither of us has done anything to personally earn your trust. Maybe I still beat my wife? Maybe I still cheat on my taxes?

So go ahead and verify before you act on it. I would do the same.

But it is coming down the pike (unless there is a detour). That's the entire point of this thread, and the only point of this thread. It's not a call to action. Never was.

Does it really sound so implausible to not possibly be true?

You cannot miss the point any bigger than this....
 

I am not saying whether it is true, I am saying how are they going to get the specifics to all officials that use NF Rules?

Peace

Statement ...
 

Already answered:

Even after that, without some type of searchable database, it will be the Wild Wild West out there.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.m...=0&w=216&h=167

What does believing you are not believing you have to do with any of this?

You understand the officiating world does not revolve around your little corner of Connecticut or this forum or you or Jeff or me?

Because I know you through a social media site I'm supposed to use you as a source? I'm supposed to feel like I'm personally offending you because I'm not going to cite you?

Are you seriously making this about believing you are not? That is very juvenile.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No it won't be the wild West. It'll be what it had always been, an officiating world where state, local, or association-specific interpretations are used when there's ambiguity in the rule and case books and no current interpretations to address the issue have been published. It's always been like that around here and always will be.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This whole conversation reminds me of the episode of The Office where Steve Carell's character walks out into the work center and proclaims "I declare bankruptcy!"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I think you have your head so far up the behinds of the IAABO people, you do not know how it works with other states. I do not need to believe anything you say. And people in my neck of the woods do not care what happens "downstate" let alone what happens several states or organizations away. So it is not the Wild Wild Anything. States always do what they feel is best. If the NF wants a national application they have to do better than claim something applies and do not know how that information is going to be used.

Peace

Unnamed Sources ...
 

Absolutely not.

I would never use anyone on the Forum as an uncited source, nor would I expect anybody to use me as an uncited source.

But it could put a bug in one's ear to verify an idea that you all heard about from BillyMac and Camron Rust with one's local or state organization.

This thread was never intended to be a call to action. Never.

It was also intended to spark a discussion about the NFHS and vanishing interpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

The validity or invalidity of vanished interpretations has been discussed many times here on the Forum.

I just wanted to add something to the discussion.

Confusion ...
 

My metaphor of the Wild Wild West being likened to "confusion" obviously didn't achieve what I wanted it to achieve.

Now that you understand my metaphor, are you going to take back your earlier post?

I agree with this post above.

Must be a Connecticut, or a New England, thing, equating confusion to the Wild Wild West, because it crashed like a lead balloon here on the multi-state Forum.

All Politics Is Local (Tip O'Neill) ...
 

I'm actually on the fence as to whether the general statement by the NFHS (assuming it's true) alone is enough, or if a database is actually needed.

Leaving it up to local or state interpreters to decide if a vanished interpretation is valid because there have been no rule or interpretation changes, or invalid because there have been rule or interpretation changes; actually fits our mostly Forum shared philosophy of when in Rome ...

I'm still pleased that the NFHS will say (assuming it's true) that there is no actual statute of limitations on vanished interpretations, that the validity/invalidity of vanished interpretations will rest on rule or interpretation changes; not on whether it's in the current book, or not.

Keep in mind that the motto of IAABO is, "One rule. One interpretation". Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state. That's where my philosophies are from coming from.

Not better or worse, just different for me. Way different. Might as well be from Mars and written in Martian.

Talked with guy's this past weekend from Colorado, Arizona, New England, and many states in the Northeast. Some slight differences, but pretty much all on the same page, speaking the same IAABO/NFHS language about rules, interpretations, mechanics, and signals.

I always tell officials who are working for more than one supervisor or organization, you have to know who you're working for that night.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Noticeably absent is a statement on old Points of Emphasis.

Seems to me the whole point of "emphasis" is that what is not emphasized is de-emphasized, relatively. The more things are emphasized, the less anything is emphasized. Page limitations parallel the limitations of the mind to keep things in mind.

So I would assume by this statement that old POE cease to be POE.

Old Points Of Emphasis ...
 

If one is willing to believe my second hand account.

I chose not to mention the old Points of Emphasis issue because it didn't sound like Ms. Atkinson's eventual published written statement would actually include such and would just deal with old, sometimes vanished, interpretations, both annual interpretations, and vanished casebook plays.

However she did discuss such with our four IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, and her philosophy regarding such was announced IAABO Fall Seminar. As long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old Points of Emphasis are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

The example given at the IAABO Fall Seminar was the example of team members running around opponents during layup lines, or gathering on the center circle logo during player introductions.

Also, the specific Point of Emphasis regarding contact above the shoulders was discussed with the NFHS basketball rules committee this past spring, broached by one of our IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, who has a spot on the committee. As a result of his inquiry (valid/invalid) three new caseplays involving contact above the shoulders will be added to the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook.

Since the penalties in the new casebook plays are slightly different from the penalties in the Point of Emphasis, I consider this as an interpretation change, thus rendering this specific Point of Emphasis invalid, although while the specific penalties have slightly changed, the intent and purpose of the Point of Emphasis (preventing concussions) has not.

Since the continued validity of old Points of Emphasis will probably never show up in "published" written form, and since Forum members should trust but verify, this will be difficult to verify, so feel perfectly free to believe what one wants to believe.

http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post...sip-495842.png

So in your world, POE's just build on top of each other into infinite. So instead of EMPHASIZING 10 rules for a particular season, officials should also be EMPHASIZING every POE that was ever published.

I'm not sure how your approach is conducive to the rules committee's desire to have certain rules emphasized for that particular season. :confused:

"Hello study group, tonight we will be reviewing 1997's POEs"

Went To Fight And A Basketball Game Broke Out ...
 

While both of us have no easy way of verifying this, it's in the NFHS world, not just mine.

"Hello study group, after last week's pregame fight, tonight we will be reviewing pregame unsporting activity."

"Hello study group, due to a recent trend by some of our game announcers to act like cheerleaders or play by play commentators, tonight we will be reviewing the role of game announcers."

Last week's pregame fight was adjudicated properly just as the rule and case books state, why does my group need to make it a POE for this season?

Our problem with announcers has been elevated to the conference ADs and the state HS board. Since the rule book doesn't specifically address that issue, we will await guidance.

You still haven't addressed your stance that all POEs ever written need to be emphasized every season. Or are you just dense when it comes to the meaning of the phrase "Points of Emphasis"?

Almost always POEs involve current rules and current interpretations. There is more than the POE to reference when a POE is made. Similar to this year with the Traveling POE. They talk about very specific moves, but reference the current rules that apply. The one issue we had to hear was a POE that did not change rules or did not address in case plays or interpretation and did not change future information to support such POEs. I can tell you as an official in multiple sports, usually, POEs are right out of the rulebook in their focus or language. This is not just a basketball expectation, the NF takes a similar approach in every sport. And many rules have a thread with other sports as well when it comes to things like unsporting behavior or coaching box or sideline expectations. Billy wanted us to accept a POE years ago that was unusual and wants us to expect it to be enforced. But the issue with that is that POEs often have things in them that the rule changes later and obviously would not apply. Now we have rules for bench warnings that we did not have before. Do you think a POE 15 years earlier would apply if that was not a factor? I would think not.

Peace

Teaching Tool ...
 

My personal stance. No they do not.

Here's my stance. If one is aware of a specific Point of Emphasis that may be valuable as a teaching tool, use it, especially the purpose and intent of such.

Not to be used as a teaching tool every year, and certainly not every single valid Point of Emphasis that ever existed.

Of course, how many Points of Emphasis one is aware of will vary from official to official based on their years of experience. With my forty years of experience, I have no desire to research and go back fifty years to research Points of Emphasis before my time.

However, if cited by an official who is more experienced than me, I will pay attention. Also, if I were to be elected as a local interpreter, I might try to research such to best prepare for my new job.

Young'un: "Hey BillyMac. I almost had a fight break out before my middle school game last week as players circled around their opponents during the layup lines. Anything I could have done about that?"

Young'un: "Hey BillyMac. I had an announcer announce, "How could she miss that easy layup?" in my junior varsity game last night. It seemed inappropriate. Anything I could have done about that?"

Rule Changes ...
 

Agree 100%. And if you believe it (which you don't have to, and I will probably have no way to verify), so does the NFHS.

Yes, I'm convinced you don't know what POEs are and what their purpose is.

Ounce Of Prevention ...
 

Might be good time to remind a group that such fights might be prevented if officials enforced the "circling the wagons" guideline before every game in which such (without the fight aspect) occurs.

"Hey coach (or site director). The NFHS has issued guidelines that bans players circling around their opponents during the layup lines. Not tonight, but fights have been known to break out during such. Please don't let your players do that in future games."

If you never put an interpretation in the rules book or case book that you use for a POE, then something tells me you did not have agreement on its usage in the first place. And POEs do not create rules, they are to highlight existing rules.

Peace

I am not having that much conversation about any rule or ruling we make. Sorry, if I have to reference the NF in a discussion in that manner, then I have already lost them.

Peace

Tossed Into The Trash And Forgotten ...
 

As I think you mean, I agree, they are indeed a Point of Emphasis only for the year issued.

After that, they are no longer Points of Emphasis, but the content of such, especially the purpose and intent, and in some cases, the specific "interpretations", may still be of value, not just to be tossed into the trash and forgotten.

To The Point ...
 

How about: "Hey coach (or site director). Don't let your players circle around their opponents during the layup lines."

Note: I only put the, "Not tonight, but fights have been known to break out during such", in there to clarify to the Forum that this was not a game in which a fight occurred.

Expound Upon And Clarify ...
 

Agree. Highlight, but also to often expound upon and clarify.

Otherwise the NFHS would simply print the rule under the heading Point of Emphasis (which they sometimes do).

My point is that if I have to invoke the NF, then that will fall on deaf ears. We have a sports administrator who they all know and a governing body that directly is over the events. And many things like this are already in the literature or rules meetings so to discuss them further would be kind of silly unless referencing the rules video. We had to deal with that particular situation for a year and after that no one violated that rule anymore. And the directive came from the IHSA before the NF even mentioned this. So again, if I have to mention the NF specifically by name to discuss a rule like this, I have lost them. Heck, we do not have time to go through that kind of stuff anyway in my experience. All I might say, "Coach this is a rule....." And leave it at that.

Peace

"Show it to me in the regs."

If a school asks for clarification on a ruling that is not clearly and unambiguously addressed in the current year rulebook, casebook, or published interpretations, it's gets elevated to the state. PERIOD

And from that point on we tell coaches/ADs that "the VHSL (state body) has ruled....." There is no mention of the NFHS. We don't care what basis the VHSL uses for its ruling, that's their business. It could be a 30 year-old vanished interpretation, it could be a 25 year-old POE that no longer needs to be emphasized, or it could be a common sense decision.

This Is A Rule ...
 

Agree.

While your local, or state, association successfully dealt with this issue previous to the Point of Emphasis, independently without the NFHS, my state association only decided to deal with this issue after the NFHS Point of Emphasis was published.

Our big Connecticut problem was not the "circle the wagons" problem, but the congregating on the school logo problem.

Because it was a one and done Point of Emphasis, not appearing in the current book (other than as an unsporting "not limited to" citation) our officials are reminded of this every year as a Connecticut IAABO guideline:

Team members are not allowed to congregate at division line, or on school logo, during introductions.

Your state might have been one (or the only) of the states that caused that the NFHS to deal with this issue.

Why does your state need a guideline if it was already an interpretation (or POE) 10-15 years ago?

Not Limited To ...
 

Connecticut has a written IAABO state board "reg", approved by the state association, regarding the congregating on the school logo problem. We do not have a circle the wagons "reg" specifically in writing anywhere, so we rely on the NFHS guidelines, guidelines that originally were a NFHS Point of Emphasis, but are no longer "emphasized", and of course, are no longer in the current book (but the underlying rule still is).

If I were to say to a coach, or a site director, "Don't let your players circle around their opponents during the layup lines" and received a response, "Show it to me in the regs", I wouldn't go into a long dissertation regarding the validity of a old Point of Emphasis no longer the current book. I would simply say, "It's in the "regs" as unsporting conduct".

And I might even followup with an email to my assigner, who acts as the liaison between officials and schools, who I am 100% certain would back me up.

One And Done ...
 

Already answered (but Raymond already knew that).

For inexperienced officials.

... and the crux of this issue.

You don't know what you don't know.

But if you know it, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, use it, especially when you have a rule citation (unsporting conduct not limited to) to back it up.

So exactly what I've already said 4 times in this thread and have also said in multiple posts to you in other threads? Yet you've continued this gaslighting charade that you and your state use the NFHS vanished POE as your citation.

Citation ...
 

Not quite, we use the vanished POE as a guideline, and use the unsporting conduct not limited to as the rule citation.

To me, it's not a black or white issue, but a gray issue that is nuanced.

... if there is a need.

Not all valid POE's need to be resurrected.

I work in a Fed state, so our coaches have access to the current NFHS publications, so lying to them (which I wouldn't do regardless) would only end up making my commissioner look bad.

I guess since you are in an IAABO state, you can make up non-existent citations and not have to worry about a coach/AD pulling up the rules digitally.

I doubt it. Just was not an issue in the first place. Was not widespread in the first place in Illinois. It was addressed and the culture changed when we were told to stop it. A lot of things that happen are not widespread that are addressed. A lot of things happen somewhere a committee member is and they feel they need to change it for everyone. That is fine, because it could spark up somewhere else, but not one of our issues. Information was gotten out to coaches and schools and often we never had to do a thing as officials. Not everything is at the game level. Some things are discussed with schools about that particular sport. Same with uniforms and Illinois had a big issue with uniforms because we had an administrator that cared a lot about that rule. Otherwise, it was not a problem for officials unless we did not want to personally get dinged for not following his directive. We followed his directive and the Board of Directors got involved and the situation went away. See how that works, I said nothing about the NF at all in that explanation. ;)

Peace

Judgement ...
 

Check your current rulebook:

10-5-1: Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to ...

Bug In The Ear ...
 

Somebody had to put this bug into the ear of the NFHS.

You said your basis was an old POE. That's what this whole conversation is about. If you can reference the existing rules language why are you adding "vanished" nonsense to the equation.

You frequently change up your words once put on the spot about the accuracy/honesty of your statements.

As a passive observer, I'd say to you ease up.

Here's the way I understand what Billy is saying.

Suppose in 1892, the NFHS put a point of emphasis in the book that said we're seeing way too much unsporting conduct. Please enforce the sportsmanship rules. We want technical fouls called whenever anybody hangs on the peach basket or if a coach throws down his jacket or if the team gathers at midcourt.

In 1893, sportsmanship has improved so they drop it as a point of emphasis. But at least for a while everybody understands that these things are examples of TF for unsporting conduct.

Then they get rid of peach baskets. So that part doesn't apply anymore.

And then Connecticut issues a regulation about gathering at midcourt.

So the only thing we're left with is wondering, is throwing your jacket still an example of a technical foul and outside of Connecticut is gathering at midcourt still an example of a technical foul. There's no POE anymore; hasn't even been for 128 years; but vets have been telling young'uns to do it. And somewhere MTD has that rulebook ready to produce on demand.

It certainly can be included by judgment, but must it? Billy seems to say yes. I'm not sure what you'd say to that other than you're very angry that Billy says yes so maybe you mean no?

Underlying Rule ...
 

The underlying rule has to still exist for an old Point of Emphasis to be still valid. The underlying rule was always there, if not, the old Point of Emphasis becomes invalid.

10-5-1: Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to ...

In this specific case, while the rule does offer some examples of unsporting conduct, it doesn't (obviously) list all examples.

The old Point of Emphasis however, does list a few additional examples.

Billy's citation for not gathering at midcourt is same as mine, his state issued guidelines (my state puts it in the clinic every year). But he has spent XXX amount of days telling us the authority we should cite to a coach is a 10-20 POE/Interpretation that is not part of the current publications.

If I'm doing something b/c that's how I interpret it should be done, then I tell the coach or my supervisor exactly that. I don't play word-games or fudge the truth about what's going on. Coaches have access to the rule and case books; I'm not going to blow smoke up their butts.

Apple Baskets ...
 

It was actually Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. who suggested to James Naismith that he no longer use peach baskets because apple baskets were stronger.

Actually, not necessarily yes. Only if needed (teaching, reference "citation", etc.).

Many old Points or Emphasis don't need to be resurrected, even if proven to still be valid. I would never suggest that every official should research every single Point of Emphasis since 1893.

But if one is aware of a "good" old one (that hasn't been deemed invalid), and has a purpose (teaching, reference "citation", etc.) for using it, then certainly use it.

Unsporting Conduct ...
 

Not what I said (remember we don't have a published guideline in Connecticut for this specific issue below).

"It's in the rules as unsporting conduct" is not a word game, nor is it fudging the truth. It's a fact and the truth.

The example of "circling the wagons" has only been mentioned once (as far as I can recall) in my little corner of Connecticut meetings, the year it was a NFHS Point of Emphasis, and it was discussed only because it was a NFHS Point of Emphasis.

And it has never been announced as invalid due to some statute of limitations (it hasn't been mentioned at all in meetings since its one and done publishing).

Yet most officials still enforce it, usually as a unofficial non-written warning (Don't do it again).

How do they know to enforce it? Do they know about the old Point of Emphasis? Maybe, but many know about it because they observe more experienced officials enforcing it.

If any young'un official (not a coach or site director) questioned me about it, I would first point them to the current rule (10-5-1) and only then tell them about the old Point of Emphasis that specifically referenced this as an example of pregame unsporting conduct.

The citation would be the current rule; the example would be from the old Point of Emphasis, the only source for this specific example here in Connecticut.

I have been saying this for years! The NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Committees do have the resources to maintain an online collection of every Rule Book and all Casebook/Approved Ruling going back to the NBC days. Lawyers have Westlaw to access online why can't the NFHS and NCAA provide such a service.

MTD, Sr.

Cranky Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ...
 

Isn't it time for your mid-afternoon nap? You better nap or you'll be cranky when you go to the restaurant for the early bird dinner special at 4:00 p.m.

Or do people your age call it supper?

No, it's an interpretation of unsporting behavior. It's not specifically in the rule book. I have no problem stating something is my interpretation. I don't fudge the truth to bolster my case.

Connecticut ...
 

And remember, to understand where I'm coming from, Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state, IAABO bases everything it does on NFHS rules and NFHS interpretations (IAABO does its own mechanics and signals), and the state association pretty much does everything the IAABO and NFHS "way".

Very, very seldom does my local IAABO board deviate from the IAABO state board. Very, very seldom does my IAABO state board deviate from the IAABO international board. Very, very seldom does the state association (CIAC) deviate from the IAABO state board.

It's pretty much straight line from the NFHS, through IAABO international, through the Connecticut IAABO state board, to my local board here in my little corner of Connecticut, with our Connecticut state association (CIAC) just going along for the ride.

Pretty much everything that NFHS does ends up trickling down into gyms here in my little corner of Connecticut.

That why I put so much emphasis on the NFHS, while others, like JRutledge, do non-NFHS stuff independently on their local, or state, level through their officiating organizations, or through their state associations.

We have everybody under one big NFHS tent.

Of course, as usual, and always, when Rome ...

Personal Judgement ...
 

Nit picking, but agree. If you enforce this, is it a personal judgement interpretation, or something from one of your organizations so that all officials in your "area" enforce such? If you don't enforce, please ignore.

In my "area" we enforce because of the example (interpretation) given in the original Point or Emphasis, it isn't a personal judgement (as long as we're aware of the Point or Emphasis).

You may have already answered this (your state association decision) but I'm late to the gym, have to deal with a broody hen, it gets dark early now, and I don't have time to backtrack through the posts.

Our state has a preseason.cliniic (online) Same one is used for coaches and officials. They address pregame expectations and behavior

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Preseason Clinic ...
 

Same pregame expectations and behavior topics every year (wagon circling, center logo, both not in the current book), or not?

Rookie officials and rookie coaches would both be first time viewers of this preseason clinic. Have to avoid, "But I didn't know that"', same nagging issue we've been discussing throughout this thread.

So while you may personally agree with the (wagon circling, center logo) interpretations, they are actually "state" interpretations.

Connecticut has such a state interpretation for center logo issues, but we're dependent for NFHS Point of Emphasis for examples of wagon circling, although we could possibly do this individually, personally, and unilaterally if there was no such NFHS Point of Emphasis, but it's easier to consistently enforce with a NFHS "interpretation".

Good, or bad, so goes the NFHS, so goes Connecticut.

I tell players to stay away from the center circle. I redirect them away when they do go that direction. It makes sense to me. Is it printed somewhere every year? I don't know. But I'm doing it anyway.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Shoo Fly, Don't Bother Me (Bing Crosby, 1959) ...
 

Same as I do. Just shoo them away. No technical foul (if I did, that would be last basketball game that I ever officiated). No written warning. I don't even mention it to the coach, or site director, unless they ask why.

Spittoon ...
 

That assumes that none of the visitor players, usually starters, are spitting on the home team's center circle logo.

That was a big problem here in Connecticut several years ago, especially in state tournament games. Led to a few fights and almost fights. Things got much better after the NFHS Point of Emphasis was published.

If this behavior were to ever return, I would definitely consider an official written warning, or maybe a small chance of a technical foul after consulting with my partner. Likely depends on whether, or not, the players pretend to clean the soles of their shoes in the spit (plausible deniability).

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.R...=0&w=300&h=300

I wouldn't have waited for the NFHS to publish a POE. I would tell the idiots to knock it off and if the coaches had a problem with my handling of the situation they could have taken it up with my assignor and the state governing body.

I like that my commissioner expects us to show common sense and make good decisions.

Preventive Officiating ...
 

The POE and problem in Connecticut happened practically simultaneously. From what I heard through the grapevine, players pretended to clean the soles of their shoes, making it difficult to determine intent. I wonder if Connecticut was one of the states that initiated this POE?

While spitting on the center circle logo pre-POE can certainly be considered unsporting, the POE goes a step further to not even allow the players there to begin with, certainly not (with no spitting) an unsporting act before the POE, but a good example of preventive officiating.

As long as they're in front of their team bench, they can spit and clean their shoes all they want. Hell, they don't even have to clean their shoes. Disgusting, but probably not unsporting or illegal.

Taking out the spitting factor, if officials were to ask players to stay out of the center circle pre-POE, I'm not sure they would have any rule or interpretation backing. Now we do (local, state, or NFHS), and I'm sure that it has prevented some fights or some almost fights.

Going by nothing but common sense, it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it."

Still going by common sense, if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is. Because you can emphasize some things only at the expense of attention to others. As magicians know, attention is a limited resource, and if you tell someone to focus on X, they have to take at least some focus off Y. Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration.

Not being a reader of Fed basketball rules, what I gather from reading here is that Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations. (This may be specific to some sports, as I haven't seen such abuse in football.) You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.