Illegal or not?? Please Help!!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

They did however tell us that in April, the wording would be changed so this wasn't allowed. As far as I'm concerned, that's how it already reads!

I don't recall hearing anything about it. The rule is clear that you can't use electronic communication device TO COMMUNICATE WITH Players or to review a decision of the officials. And the case play is nearly identical. They would have to change both. As long as your not putting an earpiece on a player or using it to say "ref video shows you made wrong call"..then I'm not aware of anything that prevents it.

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It is legal to do what they did under nfhs rules. You can't communicate with players on the court and you can't use it to review a decision of the officials. For coaching purpose you can do it.

Originally Posted by River Ref

From the mouth of the coach,is not electronic communication to the players.

It's just a bad situation for the team that was put at a disadvantage. I mean really, what kind of person thinks to even do this and cheat teenage girls??

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't recall hearing anything about it. The rule is clear that you can't use electronic communication device TO COMMUNICATE WITH Players or to review a decision of the officials. And the case play is nearly identical. They would have to change both. As long as your not putting an earpiece on a player or using it to say "ref video shows you made wrong call"..then I'm not aware of anything that prevents it.

I think he meant as in wording using wireless communication/cell phones. The current rule is electronic devices for coaching on the bench and for statistical data. Not to let a fired coach continue to coach from the top.
Is there not a rule about where coaches have to be, as in on the bench or coaching box?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

It's just a bad situation for the team that was put at a disadvantage. I mean really, what kind of person thinks to even do this and cheat teenage girls??

It's not cheating. Your team could have done the same thing. It's legal. What isn't proper is the new coach allowing the fired coach to, in effect, keep coaching. That beef, however, is for that school district to deal with.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't recall hearing anything about it. The rule is clear that you can't use electronic communication device TO COMMUNICATE WITH Players or to review a decision of the officials. And the case play is nearly identical. They would have to change both. As long as your not putting an earpiece on a player or using it to say "ref video shows you made wrong call"..then I'm not aware of anything that prevents it.

IMO, the wording in 10-1-3 is not very clear. While I'm sure what you said is their intent, it could have been worded a hell of a lot more clear. I believe it can be read like they are saying using electronic communication devices... for any purpose... is illegal, and goes on to give communicating with players on the court, and reviewing officials decisions, as particular examples only.

[Jewls885]

There are only 3 teams in this district. After the head coach was fired, the boys basketball head coach coached the girls in the championship game, which they won.

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

IMO, the wording in 10-1-3 is not very clear. While I'm sure what you said is their intent, it could have been worded a hell of a lot more clear. I believe it can be read like they are saying using electronic communication devices... for any purpose... is illegal, and goes on to give communicating with players on the court, and reviewing officials decisions, as particular examples only.

Yeah, it's kind worded loosely and can be interpreted a couple of different ways. I think that's why they said the wording would be changed in April

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

IMO, the wording in 10-1-3 is not very clear. While I'm sure what you said is their intent, it could have been worded a hell of a lot more clear. I believe it can be read like they are saying using electronic communication devices... for any purpose... is illegal, and goes on to give communicating with players on the court, and reviewing officials decisions, as particular examples only.

It's pretty clear. You can't use electronic devices to communicate w players on court or to review officials' decisions. That's the plain meaning of the words used. It doesn't say "for any purpose."

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Am I reading this wrong, or is ruling in this case play incorrect? It says 10.1.3A is legal (looking at the 15-16 case book), while 10-1-3 clearly states that using an electronic communication device is a technical foul.

Exactly!!!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

Exactly!!!

The case play is right and you have to read the entire sentence of 10-1-3.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It's pretty clear. You can't use electronic devices to communicate w players on court or to review officials' decisions. That's the plain meaning of the words used. It doesn't say "for any purpose."

Use a megaphone or any electronic communication device, or electronic equipment for voice communication with players on the court, or use electronic audio and/or video devices to review a decision of the contest officials

I'm not an expert on the English language, written or spoken, but when I see a comma used I believe it's to separate parts of the sentence. For example, "he hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base." Those are three different actions being taken, meaning the "dropped the bat" part is not an extension of the "he hit the ball" part.

That is why I believe either the interpretation is wrong, or the wording needs to be fixed.

[Jewls885]

I appreciate and thank everyone for their input on this. It's just been a very frustrating situation and you hate to see anything taken away from either group of girls because of unethical actions of adults. I truly believe you will be seeing changes in the next rule book.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not an expert on the English language, written or spoken, but when I see a comma used I believe it's to separate parts of the sentence. For example, "he hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base." Those are three different actions being taken, meaning the "dropped the bat" part is not an extension of the "he hit the ball" part.

That is why I believe either the interpretation is wrong, or the wording needs to be fixed.

It could be worded better...and, after looking at it closer, I can see that it looks like cell phone use is prohibited. The case play says "relay" info. I don't see that as being a runner from the stands to the bench. It could be clarified.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

I appreciate and thank everyone for their input on this. It's just been a very frustrating situation and you hate to see anything taken away from either group of girls because of unethical actions of adults. I truly believe you will be seeing changes in the next rule book.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the one team was cheating. Clearly the state believes everything was within the rules. Just because one team didn't know the rule doesn't mean the other team can't take advantage of it.

If my team runs an OOB play after a made basket, where the inbounder passes it along the baseline to another teammate that's also out of bounds, is what I did cheating because the other team didn't know that was legal? Of course not.

So while I may be on your side as for the legality of the play in the OP (I say "may" because I'm not yet convinced either way, although I tend to go with BigCat), I don't agree the other team cheated.

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I wouldn't go so far as to say the one team was cheating. Clearly the state believes everything was within the rules. Just because one team didn't know the rule doesn't mean the other team can't take advantage of it.

If my team runs an OOB play after a made basket, where the inbounder passes it along the baseline to another teammate that's also out of bounds, is what I did cheating because the other team didn't know that was legal? Of course not.

So while I may be on your side as for the legality of the play in the OP (I say "may" because I'm not yet convinced either way, although I tend to go with BigCat), I don't agree the other team cheated.

You're right and I guess I shouldn't have used the word "cheated" since "technically" there is nothing saying they couldn't do what they did, instead, there was only confusion from NFHS rules and KHSAA interpretation