Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BayStateRef
Mark,
As much as I appreciate your loyalty to your position and respect your support for Mr. Schindler, I do not accept this reasoning at all. How long since he was Rules Editor? 10 years? If the current editor, Mary Struckhoff, and the Rules Committee, want this rule to be as clearly ennunciated as you articulate, then they had better put it in the Rule Book or Case Book. Your citation deals with a particular fact set involving an official disqualifying a player. You extrapolate this to include that once an official does that, it is the official's responsibility to make sure he stays on the bench or leaves with an adult.
My reading is much simpler: the official may not send the player to the locker room, unless it is an unusal event and then with an adult. Once we do our job of sending the player to the bench, the coach is in charge. You say that Mr. Schindler told you otherwise. If so, that needs to be clearly stated in the Rule Book, not in a personal briefing with only some officials.
This is one of a long line of rulings that the NFHS has made that are open to too much interpretation from individuals and individual states.
|
BayState:
Your logic is faulty. When the Rules Editor speaks in his capacitiy as the Rules Editor, what he says has to be taken at face value. If the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling twenty years ago, does it not still remain in effect until the law changes. There are casebook plays that have not been in the Casebook for over ten years, but since the rule has not changed these casebook plays are still valid.
Dick Schindler, when he was the NFHS Rules Editor, would speak, in his capacity as the Rules Editor, at the IAABO Fall Rules Interpreters meeting every year; his address would be primarily about any new rules and changes in the rules as well as answer any questions. What Dick said isn't very difficult to implement. The real problem is in the many states that allow players to play in multiple games per day. Trying to apply a rule that is meant for a single game gets difficult. Re-read what I said about the history of the rule and why it was adopted. It was meant to dealt with disqualifications resulting from flagrant fouls.
Remember, our first responsibility is the safety of the non-adults involved in the game: the players and the non-adult bench personnel. Everybody needs to step back and look again at how this rule is meant to be implemented, keeping in mind that non-adult bench personnel are to be under the supervision of an adult.
Play 1: Our original play in this thread. Yes, most definitely this player needs to be under adult supervision at all times, whether on the team bench or in the locker room. Why? The player fits the profile of the anecdotal evidence that prompted the rule change in the first place.
Play 2: Two substitutes go to the locker room to exchange jersies because one jersey has blood on it. No adult supervision needed. Why? Are these players really going to trash the locker room or other nonsense? Certainly not. The purpose to the locker room is necessary for the players to be able to continue playing in the game.
Play 3: Substitute has to use the rest room, whether for #1, #2, or to puke on a coach's shoes,
, (I couldn't resist that last comment). Again, see Play 2. Logic and a history of the rule tells us that this type of trip to the locker room wasn't intended to be covered by the rules.
Play 4: Substitue goes to the locker room late in the JV game to get ready with his/her teammates to play in the VAR game. I would venture to say that the Head Coach is already in the locker room with the other VAR players.
The key to remember is that the rule was intended to handle the unusual case of a player that had become disqualified due to a flagrant foul or if a non-adult bench personnel becomes a problem such that the Head Coach himself does not want this person on the bench even though he is not a disqualified non-adult bench personne; that non-adult bench personnel cannot and should not be allowed to leave the team bench unless he is under the supervision of an adult. Now I will admit that in the latter situation the game officials might not, and most likely will not be aware of such a problem on the bench and if their aren't aware of it there really is nothing they can do, but if they do become aware of it they need to let the Head Coach know what the rules require the Head Coach to do. The rule was not temporary trips to the locker room to fix equipment, go to the rest room, or get a drink at the water fountain.
Mary Struckhoff won't get involved in the discussion because she doesn't want to make rules interpretations even though that is her number one job description. And to be honest, there are a number of officials on this board who have infinitely more knowledge of the history of the rules and why they were adopted than Mary Struckhoff. Besides, Peter Webb is just two states over from you. If you want to get the best information regarding NFHS Rules, just contact Peter. Peter Webb spent two terms on the NFHS Rules Committee and is considered the most knowledgeble NFHS rules person in the country. Truth be known, Mary probably goes to Peter for rules interpretations when she wants to get it correct.
MTD, Sr.
P.S.: Re-read my Post #45. What do the Rules say about who gets ejected and who does not get ejected. Adult bench personnel
are ejected. Adult bench personnel
are not disqualified (except for the Head Coach who is both disqualified and ejected and I don't have a clue as to why the rule is written that way). The Rules specifically state that players (which are non-adults by default) and non-adult bench personnel are
disqualified ONLY. As I have stated ad nauseum, the Rules
do NOT eject disqualified players (which are non-adults by default) and non-adult bench personnel because they are to remain under the supervision of an adult. Furthermore, the situation in the original post is extremely rare. I have had my share of disqaulified (due to a flagrant foul) players in 37 years of officiating and I cannot remember a single time where I needed to have that player removed under adult supervision to the locker room. I have had games where I thought that a Head Coach or even both Head Coaches should have been under adult supervision, LOL, but that is another story. The best advice I can give you is to stop, and look at the problem logically. Does it fit the criteria of what the Rules Committee wanted when it adopted the rule? If it does, then require that non-adult bench personnel to be supervised by an adult off the team bench, if not require him to remain on the team bench.