Problem Player

[Adam]

Originally Posted by walt

The one message I did give the crew was, from my perspective, they did too much talking and warning without ever setting the line and dealing with their problem children. The free throw line situation to me, rolling the ball away especially, would have earned #2 a T. The slap on the butt at the beginning I am not so sure for the reasons Deecee stated. When the official talked to him, he stopped, seemed to acknowledge, and slapped his butt. Inappropriate yes but I find it hard to believe most of us would have done anything other than playing on at that point. Would the radar mark #2? Yep.

As for the free throw situation, I know it is not an ROP situation but I am not sure I wouldn't have done what the Lead did. Tell him again get in and then deal with it. Those who disagree, and again I know the rule, if this just happened in one of your games and you didn't have the previous behavior issues, would you really have just stuck a player for not coming in?

I would have made one more request for #2 to come back to the line. If I didn't see immediate movement, then yes, I'd have stuck him. This one is a no-brainer because of his previous issues.

Had this been a model player up to that point, my request may have included a bit more (unannounced) time for compliance. #2 had already squandered all of his initial good will.

Either way, I wouldn't use RPP (simply because it's not called for in the rule.) I'm not faulting them for doing it. Either way, he gets the T when he rolls the ball to the bench (assuming the L was asking him for the ball).

[UNIgiantslayers]

What are you going to do? Stand there and beg him? Do what these guys did and look like a crew of chumps? Take care of business and move on.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by walt

In this particular game, I could see whacking #2 for an unsporting action/behavior. I get that. But, forget this game. For those that would whack a player right away for not coming in, what rule are you using to support that?

Not listening to instructions. Your scenario presumes the player is in the semi circle.

Look at the ROP and the scenarios for DOG.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by walt

It is not in the Technical foul chart or in any rule or play I can find.

In this particular game, I could see whacking #2 for an unsporting action/behavior. I get that. But, forget this game. For those that would whack a player right away for not coming in, what rule are you using to support that?

Sniper quoted it:

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

ART. 5

A player shall not:

Delay the game by acts such as:

a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds.

c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

ART. 6

[walt]

Deecee that's my thinking. I know the delay rule. For #2, I would have stuck him based upon the problem he'd been from the jump. In a regular situation though, I am pretty sure the first time it happened I would have placed the ball at the line and then called the violation as soon as he came to get it. I think by the plays I cited that is justified as well.

I get the 10-4-5(c). Totally get it. To me though, especially the 9.1.3 Situation I play seems to put forth a contradiction when it says may not leave OR ENTER after it is at the disposal. It does not mention ROP at all and neither does Rule 9-1-3 which deals with after the ball has been placed at the disposal of a free thrower.

Now you might be able to argue and convince me words have been omitted and the 10-4 wording trumps all. It perplexes me though that case plays in Rules 8 and 9 and Rules 8 and 9 appear to give conflicting guidance.

Maybe I am just reading too much into them.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

RPP is a violation., sans it the play is a T.

Right. I didn't read what I was quoting carefully enough. RIF on my end.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by walt

Deecee that's my thinking. I know the delay rule. For #2, I would have stuck him based upon the problem he'd been from the jump. In a regular situation though, I am pretty sure the first time it happened I would have placed the ball at the line and then called the violation as soon as he came to get it. I think by the plays I cited that is justified as well.

I get the 10-4-5(c). Totally get it. To me though, especially the 9.1.3 Situation I play seems to put forth a contradiction when it says may not leave OR ENTER after it is at the disposal. It does not mention ROP at all and neither does Rule 9-1-3 which deals with after the ball has been placed at the disposal of a free thrower.

Now you might be able to argue and convince me words have been omitted and the 10-4 wording trumps all. It perplexes me though that case plays in Rules 8 and 9 and Rules 8 and 9 appear to give conflicting guidance.

Maybe I am just reading too much into them.

I think the key is that the player left the semi-circle prior to the ball being at his disposal. This puts it into the 10-4 category, IMO.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by walt

Deecee that's my thinking. I know the delay rule. For #2, I would have stuck him based upon the problem he'd been from the jump. In a regular situation though, I am pretty sure the first time it happened I would have placed the ball at the line and then called the violation as soon as he came to get it. I think by the plays I cited that is justified as well.

I get the 10-4-5(c). Totally get it. To me though, especially the 9.1.3 Situation I play seems to put forth a contradiction when it says may not leave OR ENTER after it is at the disposal. It does not mention ROP at all and neither does Rule 9-1-3 which deals with after the ball has been placed at the disposal of a free thrower.

Now you might be able to argue and convince me words have been omitted and the 10-4 wording trumps all. It perplexes me though that case plays in Rules 8 and 9 and Rules 8 and 9 appear to give conflicting guidance.

Maybe I am just reading too much into them.

Walt, all the rules have been cited. The issue is a player NOT willing to enter the semi circle NOT a player not willing to accept the ball.

[SNIPERBBB]

The difference is the ball by rule should not of been placed at the disposal of the player.

[walt]

Assuming the 9-1-3 play RULING omits wording as it relates to entering when the RPP is in effect, I get the T under 10-4-5(c). And again, in the OP, #2 should have been whacked long before then.

I agree with the why and how all of you are reading it. Thanks for the discussion. Deecee that last comment really brightened the light bulb in my head!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by walt

Deecee that's my thinking. I know the delay rule. For #2, I would have stuck him based upon the problem he'd been from the jump.

That's why we have it as a tool. It doesn't mean we need to use it if the player isn't being a problem before this point. If he hadn't been an @$$ all game, I'd give him more leash to get in the circle but warn him he needs to get there. I wouldn't put the ball down because we have specific times when we can do that, and this isn't one.

And 10-4-5 specifically tells us when it isn't a T and that's following a timeout or intermission. The rule has everything we need baked in.

[walt]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That's why we have it as a tool. It doesn't mean we need to use it if the player isn't being a problem before this point. If he hadn't been an @$$ all game, I'd give him more leash to get in the circle but warn him he needs to get there. I wouldn't put the ball down because we have specific times when we can do that, and this isn't one.

And 10-4-5 specifically tells us when it isn't a T and that's following a timeout or intermission. The rule has everything we need baked in.

Yep, got it now. I was getting caught up in the "real game", more leash for a better behaved player action, rather than the true application of the rule. Thanks.

[Raymond]

... Almost immediately from the start, #2 and #15 BLUE are going at each other pretty hard, fouls called appropriately, but it seems the two players are always saying something to one another. Crew warns them both....

"Always" implies multiple times. At the point the crew warned them I would have whacked both of them. If #2 still felt brave enough to walk out of the semi-circle later in the game, I would have whacked him again and his sub would have been shooting 1-and-1.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by walt

As for the free throw situation, I know it is not an ROP situation but I am not sure I wouldn't have done what the Lead did. Tell him again get in and then deal with it. Those who disagree, and again I know the rule, if this just happened in one of your games and you didn't have the previous behavior issues, would you really have just stuck a player for not coming in?

"Coach -- if #2 doesn't enter the circle right now I will be forced to enforce the rule and give him a T."

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by walt

In this particular game, I could see whacking #2 for an unsporting action/behavior. I get that. But, forget this game. For those that would whack a player right away for not coming in, what rule are you using to support that?

10-4-5-a
10-4-5-c