2005-2006 NFHS POE

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Wasn't it just 2 or 3 years ago that the fed was complaining that 'strategic fouls' only served to make the game too long? And didn't they also tell us a coach yelling "FOUL 'EM!" is an automatic intentional?

The least the committee could have done was admit they completely reversed their stand on this.

I'm glad the fed has finally adopted this interpretation btw.

Just for the record-- from the 2000-01 POE's:
-"Acts that must be deemed intentional include when a coach/player says watch, we're going to foul".

I think that very few officials followed that, anyway, as long as the defender made some kinda half-a$$ed attempt to play the ball. Now the FED recognizes a "strategic" foul and is telling us to call it the way that most of us were already calling it. That doesn't include the few officials that lack the testicular fortitude to ever call an intentional foul, no matter how obvious it is- which is why an IF is a POE again this year.

[Snake~eyes]

This is how I've always called it but I like that it is a POE, so if a coach give me that "why'd you call that?" look then I can give him the "Its POE for 2005" look.

[TigerBball]

And the coach would say, "what's a POE"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by TigerBball
And the coach would say, "what's a POE"

And you would say - "point of emphasis, dickhead".

That's always good for the ol' coach/official relationship.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Now the FED recognizes a "strategic" foul and is telling us to call it the way that most of us were already calling it.

If the people will lead, the leaders will follow!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Wasn't it just 2 or 3 years ago that the fed was complaining that 'strategic fouls' only served to make the game too long? And didn't they also tell us a coach yelling "FOUL 'EM!" is an automatic intentional?

The least the committee could have done was admit they completely reversed their stand on this.

Why should they start now. They completely changed the LGP rule by "interpretation" 2-3 years ago. They didn't even call it a rule change.

[Nevadaref]

I haven't seen the new Rules Book in print yet, but it sounds like they have changed the definition of an intentional foul.

The current wording is:
4-19
ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


What is posted on the website is:

The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponentÂ’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


The current wording makes the mere fact that the foul is designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting enough for it to meet the definition of an intentional foul. Notice the use of the word "or" in the sentence contruction.

The revised paragraph uses a different construction, which splits the criteria into two sentences. The first tells us that a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage shall be deemed an intentional foul. However, the second sentence groups the stopping of the clock or keeping it from starting together with contact away from the ball or not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. This means that BOTH of these elements must be present together in order for the foul to meet the definition and be deemed an intentional foul. In other words, the mere fact that the foul is designed to stop the clock by itself is no longer sufficient for the foul to be intentional. The foul must also be committed away from the ball or not be a legitimate attempt to play the ball. However, a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position need not also be designed to stop the clock; it is enough in and of itself to qualify as intentional.

This is a big change. I truly wonder if the committee really did change the wording of the definiton because without doing that, they can say whatever they want on the website, but the rule hasn't changed. I'm anxious to see the new book.

[Edited by Nevadaref on May 13th, 2005 at 05:04 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

This is a big change. I truly wonder if the committee really did change the wording of the definiton because without doing that, they can say whatever they want on the website, but the rule hasn't changed.

The website says that the rule hasn't been changed. It's just been clarified. Iow, the language may have been changed slightly but the purpose and intent of the rule remains the same.

The situations that they mention must be called this year are exactly the same as the the ones they mentioned in the 2000-01 POE's. The only real difference is they've changed their minds about calling an intentional foul if the coach says "foul "em". I don't blame them for backing down on that one, because that was a dumb interpretation anyway- and one that most everybody ignored if the defender went for the ball.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The only real difference is they've changed their minds about calling an intentional foul if the coach says "foul "em". I don't blame them for backing down on that one, because that was a dumb interpretation anyway- and one that most everybody ignored if the defender went for the ball.

I agree, JR.
My rationalization for calling the act, and not the verbal command, was that the player may not have heard the coach, which made the coach's command moot.
mick

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The website says that the rule hasn't been changed. It's just been clarified. Iow, the language may have been changed slightly but the purpose and intent of the rule remains the same.

The situations that they mention must be called this year are exactly the same as the the ones they mentioned in the 2000-01 POE's. The only real difference is they've changed their minds about calling an intentional foul if the coach says "foul "em". I don't blame them for backing down on that one, because that was a dumb interpretation anyway- and one that most everybody ignored if the defender went for the ball.

And my point is that the slight change in the wording really does make a BIG change in the rule, no matter what they say. (If, in fact, the committee has changed the wording.) They can say whatever they want about a clarification, as we learned from the LGP fiasco, but a change is still a change.

Under the old wording if you fouled to stop the clock, it was an intentional foul, but if we go with the wording in the "clarification" it would be allowed (only resulting in a common foul) as long as a legitimate attempt to play the ball was made. That is a fundamental change in the rules.

So while the examples that they did provide are the same as before and would still result in intentional fouls, they don't give the example that I just did in the above paragraph. That play is going to have to be called differently, if they changed the wording of the rule.

[BktBallRef]

You're grabbing for straws, NV. That's not what it's saying.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

And my point is that the slight change in the wording really does make a BIG change in the rule, no matter what they say. (If, in fact, the committee has changed the wording.) They can say whatever they want about a clarification, as we learned from the LGP fiasco, but a change is still a change.

Under the old wording if you fouled to stop the clock, it was an intentional foul, but if we go with the wording in the "clarification" it would be allowed (only resulting in a common foul) as long as a legitimate attempt to play the ball was made. That is a fundamental change in the rules.

So while the examples that they did provide are the same as before and would still result in intentional fouls, they don't give the example that I just did in the above paragraph. That play is going to have to be called differently, if they changed the wording of the rule.

And my point is that a "clarification" is basically the same thing as a case play being issued. Iow the rule is the same, but they want to make sure that we know exactly how that particular rule is supposed to be interpreted.

No big deal either way. The important thing is that the play gets called uniformly across the country.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref


And my point is that the slight change in the wording really does make a BIG change in the rule, no matter what they say. (If, in fact, the committee has changed the wording.) They can say whatever they want about a clarification, as we learned from the LGP fiasco, but a change is still a change.

Under the old wording if you fouled to stop the clock, it was an intentional foul, but if we go with the wording in the "clarification" it would be allowed (only resulting in a common foul) as long as a legitimate attempt to play the ball was made. That is a fundamental change in the rules.

So while the examples that they did provide are the same as before and would still result in intentional fouls, they don't give the example that I just did in the above paragraph. That play is going to have to be called differently, if they changed the wording of the rule.

Take it up with your local association. This current interpretation was basically how we were informed to call it or to use our judgment toward this rule. Now this just confirms that our area was consistent with what should be done. Interpretations change over time. Especially when one interpretation has little common sense involved. This is really not that big of a deal. Take it up with your local association and call it the way they want you to.

Peace

[lukealex]

Question about the uniform rules: Say a player gets ejected, removes his shirt before leaving the court, T is assessed. The player has already been ejected, so would the T be a team technical?

Could someone also explain POE (point of emphasis) so I know I'm clear on the subject.

Thanks

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by lukealex
Question about the uniform rules: Say a player gets ejected, removes his shirt before leaving the court, T is assessed. The player has already been ejected, so would the T be a team technical?

Yes, in FED, all direct T's count as team fouls. Additionally, if the coach has been notified of A1's DQ, then the T is applied indirectly to the head coach.

Could someone also explain POE (point of emphasis) so I know I'm clear on the subject.

Gotta be a little more specific here, Alex. They're all written out on page 1 of this thread. Which one is confusing you?