Its Got No Teeth ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have been saying this for years!

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

However, Ms. Atkinson stated that the NFHS did not have the resources to “resurrect” such interpretations,.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ms. Atkinson stated that the NFHS did not have the resources to “resurrect” such interpretations ...

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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?

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I find that rather funny that the NF does not have resources to simply put out information they previously published ...

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Sounds like something they just do not want to do or causes them issues if something contradicts current information.

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.

[Raymond]

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

[Raymond]

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 case play goes in, one usually has to come out.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Specifically regarding the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis, one of the Co-Coordinators served on the most recent NFHS rules committee and "swinging elbows" was discussed resulting in three new casebook plays to be added to the 2021-22 NFHS Casebook:

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

One of the old POE parameters isn't interpreted the same as it was in the old POE (an elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul), but the new casebook plays are a good reminder that player safety should be a high priority, and that officials should, and often must, consider upgrades for contact to the head.

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.