NFHS 2015-16 Points of Emphasis

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

8-4-g. not more than one player can occupy lane space. if two players are touching it is likely one of them is in the other space.

AND, after thinking about it for few seconds..they are talking about the second slot moving in early or the first slot doing same. those are violations that need to be enforced.

You are speaking of calling a violation. POE #2 is instructing officials to call fouls when the listed items occur. Vastly different and my contention is that 2e cannot be justified by the rules. No where within them is a simple touch of an opponent in a neighboring FT lane space stated to be a foul.
A POE during a previous season made the same comment and I wrote then that it was not accurate. This is nothing more than someone attempting to create a ruling through their editorial position or task of crafting the language for the POEs.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are speaking of calling a violation. POE #2 is instructing officials to call fouls when the listed items occur. Vastly different and my contention is that 2e cannot be justified by the rules. No where within them is a simple touch of an opponent in a neighboring FT lane space stated to be a foul.
A POE during a previous season made the same comment and I wrote then that it was not accurate. This is nothing more than someone attempting to create a ruling through their editorial position or task of crafting the language for the POEs.

Poe 1, clearly is calling for fouls. Poe 2 says "Illegal activity" includes....Not necessarily requiring foul call. They could have said again in 2 that it is a foul....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Poe 1, clearly is calling for fouls. Poe 2 says "Illegal activity" includes....Not necessarily requiring foul call. They could have said again in 2 that it is a foul....

1. The items listed in 2a through 2d all clearly pertain to fouls not violations, yet you contend that e is different. I don't agree.

2. The text of 2e begins "Contact between players..." Please name one single example of contact between players resulting in a violation. (Or you can just admit that you are wrong.)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. The items listed in 2a through 2d all clearly pertain to fouls not violations, yet you contend that e is different. I don't agree.

2. The text of 2e begins "Contact between players..." Please name one single example of contact between players resulting in a violation. (Or you can just admit that you are wrong.)

law school 101. number 1 specifically says the following are "fouls." POE 2 say the following are "illegal activity." i agree a -d are fouls. e, contact between players in a lane space before free thrower releases ball --can be violation or foul.

consider that in the context of what we see happening in high school now---second lane spot may move in early and shove first under. first may hit second early to keep him from pushing him under.

the poe is telling you to watch for "illegal activity" in that situation. doesnt mean you have to call a foul. get the person who goes in early.

[OKREF]

It says properly enforced and penalized. Which means the enforcement could be a violation or a foul, whichever one applies to the situation. The way I see 2E, is that in those times that a player reaches across the vertical edge of his lane boundary into the opponents lane spot and makes contact, it should be a violation. By getting this when it happens, it will stop any further activity once the shot goes up.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

law school 101. number 1 specifically says the following are "fouls." POE 2 say the following are "illegal activity." i agree a -d are fouls. e, contact between players in a lane space before free thrower releases ball --can be violation or foul.

Which you must have failed because you just made a circular argument. I asked for someone to show me a RULE making the action in 2e illegal (in the context of fouls). You cited a rule for violations, 8-4g, which doesn't involve contact. I respond that according to the text of 2e we are discussing a contact situation and challenged you to cite a single instance in which contact between players is a violation. YOU NOW RESPOND WITH POE 2e! Right back where you started.
So allow me to be clear. Please post anything from the NFHS Rules Book that involves contact between two players which you believe to be a violation OTHER THAN THIS POE.

Originally Posted by BigCat

consider that in the context of what we see happening in high school now---second lane spot may move in early and shove first under. first may hit second early to keep him from pushing him under.

the poe is telling you to watch for "illegal activity" in that situation. doesnt mean you have to call a foul. get the person who goes in early.

Entering the lane early is a violation.
Illegally contacting an opponent would be a foul.
Contacting an opponent in a legal manner is nothing.
Keep it simple.

Originally Posted by OKREF

It says properly enforced and penalized. Which means the enforcement could be a violation or a foul, whichever one applies to the situation. The way I see 2E, is that in those times that a player reaches across the vertical edge of his lane boundary into the opponents lane spot and makes contact, it should be a violation. By getting this when it happens, it will stop any further activity once the shot goes up.

Almost. I agree that we should properly penalize any illegal action with a violation or foul as appropriate.
The problem with your post is that "reach[ing] across the vertical edge of [a] lane boundary into the opponent's lane spot" is NOT illegal according to any NFHS rule. Only breaking such a boundary with a foot is a violation.
Additionally, if contact is made, there is no NFHS rule extant permitting a violation to be called. It is just a judgment call by the official as to whether or not to whistle a foul.

[Texas Aggie]

I'm so glad they FINALLY addressed post play as a POE. Long overdue since they've NEVER done that before.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are speaking of calling a violation. POE #2 is instructing officials to call fouls when the listed items occur. Vastly different and my contention is that 2e cannot be justified by the rules. No where within them is a simple touch of an opponent in a neighboring FT lane space stated to be a foul.
A POE during a previous season made the same comment and I wrote then that it was not accurate. This is nothing more than someone attempting to create a ruling through their editorial position or task of crafting the language for the POEs.

If POE 2e is telling us to call a foul when players standing in lane spaces touch then i agree. not supported by any rules and absurd. I try to avoid thinking they would mean the absurd. (maybe i shouldn't).