Strange Case Continued ...

[BillyMac]

For some reason I got locked out of the original thread.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What about this play?

Thanks JRutledge. Great video to interpret contact above the shoulders.

As a high school only official, I will interpret this under current NFHS rules and a relevant, but old, Point of Emphasis, that as a veteran official I'm am well aware of and can't ignore, or pretend to ignore, because, as far as I know, it's still valid, has never been ruled invalid, null, or void, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes to invalidate such.

Contact above shoulders? Yes. Elbow to chin.

Excessively swinging elbows? Yes, elbows were swinging with no feet pivoting, as well as elbows swinging faster than the hips were rotating.

Type of foul? A moving elbow that is excessively swinging that results in contact above shoulders can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

My interpretation: Intentional excessive contact foul. Close, but not quite violent enough to be a flagrant foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent nature involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

How will an inexperienced official interpret this with no current rulebook containing the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis?

Hopefully, he would have had a great trainer who covered this situation during the training classes.

Failing that, the inexperienced official would have to make his interpretation solely based on 4-129-3 and 4-19-4.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There was an entire directive about announcers in and out of the rulebook. There was a PowerPoint that discussed this in detail from the NF

It was only in the rulebbok because it was a Point of Emphasis that year, as with all annual Points of Emphasis. And there was a NF Power Point, as with all annual Points of Emphasis.

Was it in the actual rule part of the rulebook and more importantly, is it still the rulebook?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

https://app.photobucket.com/u/StateF...3-023cea174f78

Is this play under NF rules considered an intentional foul? Contact above the shoulders right?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you did not answer my question. Are these two plays fouls under the POE you so gladly love to mention anytime you get a chance? And if so why?

Can't see the video. Some type of pay wall. I'm retired and live on a fixed income.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can't see the video. Some type of pay wall. I'm retired an have a fixed income.

I might edit that video and post it on my OB page. I was just trying to avoid having to deal with the NCAA or CBS on that one.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Neither of these examples is comparable to us calling a specific foul for a specific action and not telling us if or when a play should be ruled incidental or not.

Agree. Only brought it up because both are old Points of Emphasis that never made their way into the rulebooks, two of your reasons for declaring such Points of Emphasis invalid, null, and void, which I believe that they aren't.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For some reason I got locked out of the original thread.

Anybody else having a problem? Did I finally do it? Did I finally post too many posts and break the Official Forum?

[Raymond]

The purpose of a POE is to EMPHASIZE a rule, not re-write it. A POE should directly reference verbiage in a rule. This 2013 POE you keep referencing did not reference any existing rules verbiage. If that's what the NFHS wants adjudicated, then they need to add language to the 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 concerning contact to the head specifically. Maybe if they wrote the rules they wanted it interpreted and adjudicated the wouldn't have needed a POE.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

POEs are to EMPHASIZE an existing rule. A POE should reference existing rules/case play verbiage, not make up new criteria. If a POE disappears it doesn't mean the rule disappeared.

Agree. I believe that the NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

Because the NFHS decided to go the Point Emphasis route instead of the rule change route, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the "book"?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The purpose of a POE is to EMPHASIZE a rule, not re-write it. A POE should directly reference verbiage in a rule. This 2013 POE you keep referencing did not reference any existing rules verbiage. If that's what the NFHS wants adjudicated, then they need to add language to the 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 concerning contact to the head specifically. Maybe if they wrote the rules they wanted it interpreted and adjudicated the wouldn't have needed a POE.

Preaching to the choir, and JRutledge and I are both in the choir (I'm a tenor).

Again, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the rulebook?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. I believe that the NFHS dropped the ball on this one.

Because the NFHS decided to go the Point Emphasis route instead of the rule change route, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the "book"?

As far as I'm concerned, yes. I don't study old rule books. I officiate by the current rules and case plays. When I'm in the locker room discussing plays and situations from games I'm working or about to work, I pull out what's current.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I don't study old rule books. I officiate by the current rules and case plays.

Good point.

But there are other ways of becoming good official beside reading current books, like listening to veteran trainers. But you do make a valid point, a point that I believe is shared by JRutlelge, his point also being valid, yet I still disagree with both respected Forum members. I can't (and shouldn't) ignore something that I'm aware of. Inexperienced officials are another story, they don't know what they don't know.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do we call it on a bigger player that rebounds the ball and comes down naturally onto a player in their vertical plane and hits their opponent with an elbow?

Great question.

Did the contact involve a swinging elbow, because that's what the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis deals with, for the most part, swinging (excessively or not excessively) elbows that make contact with an opponent above the shoulders?

This sounds like a minor part of the Point Of Emphasis. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

As a high school only official, I will interpret this under current NFHS rules and a relevant, but old, Point of Emphasis, that as a veteran official I'm am well aware of and can't ignore, or pretend to ignore, because, as far as I know, it's still valid, has never been ruled invalid, null, or void, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes to invalidate such.

Contact above shoulders? Yes. Elbow to chin.

Excessively swinging elbows? Yes, elbows were swinging with no feet pivoting, as well as elbows swinging faster than the hips were rotating.

Type of foul? A moving elbow that is excessive that results in contact above shoulders can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

My interpretation: Intentional excessive contact foul. Close, but not quite violent enough to be a flagrant foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent nature involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

How will an inexperienced official interpret this with no current rulebook containing the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Points Of Emphasis?

Hopefully, he would have had a great trainer who covered this situation during the training classes.

Failing that, the inexperienced official would have to make his interpretation solely based on 4-129-3 and 4-19-4.

Stupid NFHS.

I do not see that as excessive at all and can make a case the contact was with mostly the chest then the head and neck area. He does not even have a bent elbow that was used, he is just turning. But the point is nothing in the current rule says that this is an intentional or even flagrant foul just because of where you contact them.

The NCAA has got even more specific and this could have been ruled a cylinder play at that level. One reason, the defender is supposed to give the ball handler room to move or pivot naturally. This is the thing, the NCAA used to have any elbow hitting an opponent as a Flagrant Foul (similar to targeting in football). If you deemed that took place in a monitor review, it was considered a Flagrant Foul no matter the circumstances for the most part. Well, they got rid of that because it made no damn sense. You were getting players just doing normal stuff and getting an upgrade that often was not even seen but on replay. So that is one of the reasons I do not like the NF position then (if that is even the position) because the game has evolved and addressed these issues in other codes. The rule cannot be so black and white on a grey type of play. And we have no monitor either?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good point.

But there are other ways of becoming good official beside reading current books, like listening to veteran trainers. But you do make a valid point, a point that I believe is shared by JRutlelge, his point also being valid, yet I still disagree with both respected Forum members. I can't (and shouldn't) ignore something that I'm aware of. Inexperienced officials are another story, they don't know what they don't know.

I am a veteran trainer. I'm also someone looked to by multiple supervisors to research rules (NCAA and NFHS) to provide answers to coaches and ADs who send in inquiries. They want references from the CURRENT rules in place.

You DO NOT become a good official by substituting outdated citations for what is currently in place. I tell younger officials all the time to watch out who you listen to. #1 on that list for me are veteran officials who do not keep current on rules and instead go by what they remember reading somewhere in 2013 or whatever year they last decided to study the rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But the point is nothing in the current rule says that this is an intentional or even flagrant foul just because of where you contact them.

Agree, and that's the problem.

If one believes that the Point Emphasis is invalid, as JRutledge does, there is little rule rule support for specific point of contact, just generic rules for intentional, and flagrant, fouls, which can be subjective.

If one believes that the Point Emphasis is still valid, as I do, then that's the support that I use to make the interpretation and penalty based on the specific point of contact.