Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
I shot off an email to him. I will let the Forum know if I receive any updated information from him.
|
Here's the email that I sent:
IAABO Board 403 Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association:
I have recently been made aware of an interpretation on the IAABO Board 403 Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association website. It appears under the heading 2009-2010, Plays of the Week, Week 4:
Play #4 - Before the game the referee notes that there are eleven team members of Team A warming up. However, there are twelve names in the scorebook. When the referee asks the coach about this, he says that one player missed the bus. The referee orders the player's name and number removed from the book stating that an individual must be present to have their name entered in the book. Was the referee correct?
Answer: The referee was not correct. Although the definition of team member implies that the individual must be present to be entered in the scorebook, it was not the intent of the NFHS to prohibit the inclusion of individuals in the scorebook who may be late or may not show up. (References: Rule 3.2.1, NFHS Interpretation)
This rule interpretation appears to be in direct opposition to an interpretation that appeared on the 2005 IAABO Refresher Exam:
73) Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warm up, the referee counts eleven team members for team A, but while checking the book, team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book, even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct?
73) Yes: Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1, Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4.
Here are the citations listed:
3-2-1: At least ten minutes before the scheduled starting time, each team shall supply the official scorer with the name and number of each team member and designate the five starting players. Failure to comply results in a technical foul (see 10-1-1 Penalty).
4-34-4: A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.
Almost every one in my local board got this question wrong. We disagreed with the answer, and citation, back in 2005, and we still disagree with the answer, and citation. When I'm the referee, I'm pleased to see that there are more names in the book than there are on the floor during warmups. The opposite, more players on the floor than in the book, can, obviously, present problems.
If I recall, IAABO "International" gave us some type of explanation involving the definition of a team member as a squad member being in uniform and eligible to play. My local interpreter disagreed with this interpretation, and locally, we still allow more names in the book than on the floor, but that may not be the correct IAABO "International" interpretation, nor may it be the correct NFHS interpretation. As far as I know, we, here in Connecticut, have never been "officially" informed by IAABO "International", or the NFHS, of any other interpretation. As far as we know, the refresher exam answer still represents the "Law Of The Land", a "Law" that we, under the rational guidance of our local interpreter, have chosen to ignore.
I am not disagreeing with the interpretation on your website. I actually like your interpretation, it "fits" what we're actually doing here in Connecticut. Rather, I would like to know what your IAABO Board 403 Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association interpretation is based on? Have you received a new, i.e., newer than 2005, interpretation from either IAABO "International", or from the NFHS, and if so, could you please share that information with me?
Here's their response:
Regarding this play quite a few questions had been generated to the NFHS about the change that led to the situation where you couldn't have more names on the scorebook roster. As a result the NFHS issued a supplementary case play on their website. This case play never made it to the Case Book. The wording in the answer was lifted directly from that case play.
Anybody got the "supplementary case play" in context?
C'mon Nevadaref. "Now go do that voodoo that you do so well."