Problem Player

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by deecee

I wouldn't. I've had chats with players where I explain what they did wrong and they were receptive. It would all depend on context, but this act in and of itself is not a punishable offense to me. In hindsight you can always say, "well #2 was a PITA the rest of the way." But at that moment you don't know that.

If he's acting like that and I give him an opportunity to knock it off, and he slaps my ass you can bet he'll start the game with a T. There is no reason for a player to ever touch an official, not to mention him trying to show you up. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I don't think I'll convince you otherwise and vice versa. There are at least 3 other instances where I would've whacked this kid without a second thought, but that hustle pat for me is not a warning. His warning comes when I tell him to cool it with the crap before the game. It's amazing he's gotten this far thinking he can act like that. Guys who did not TCOB, along with poor coaching would be my reasons he acts like this. This kind of crap gets me fired up. What we permit we promote.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

If he's acting like that and I give him an opportunity to knock it off, and he slaps my ass you can bet he'll start the game with a T. There is no reason for a player to ever touch an official, not to mention him trying to show you up. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I don't think I'll convince you otherwise and vice versa. There are at least 3 other instances where I would've whacked this kid without a second thought, but that hustle pat for me is not a warning. His warning comes when I tell him to cool it with the crap before the game. It's amazing he's gotten this far thinking he can act like that. Guys who did not TCOB, along with poor coaching would be my reasons he acts like this. This kind of crap gets me fired up. What we permit we promote.

I don't entirely disagree, that's why I said it's all in context and this isn't automatic.

Take for instance a foul you call and the player asks you what he did. You explain and he get it. He says thanks, pats your butt and walks away. Let's assume it's genuine appreciation.

You call the T. Somewhere in the rule you have justification. In reality you just made a connection with a player who appreciated feedback and you had great communication that almost means you have an ally on that team who can "help" you and the crew. In college, its' a win win. Slapping a T here negates all that and I know will get me a call from my assignor and I will expect a, "why the heck did you call the T." The expectation is to communicate (that's a 2 way street).

I've had a 7 footer come up to me and put his hand on my shoulder and ask why I couldn't have let that foul go (we both laughed and he moved along). In your world that's a T. In mine it's a moment to communicate and build a relationship.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't entirely disagree, that's why I said it's all in context and this isn't automatic.

Take for instance a foul you call and the player asks you what he did. You explain and he get it. He says thanks, pats your butt and walks away. Let's assume it's genuine appreciation.

You call the T. Somewhere in the rule you have justification. In reality you just made a connection with a player who appreciated feedback and you had great communication that almost means you have an ally on that team who can "help" you and the crew. In college, its' a win win. Slapping a T here negates all that and I know will get me a call from my assignor and I will expect a, "why the heck did you call the T." The expectation is to communicate (that's a 2 way street).

I've had a 7 footer come up to me and put his hand on my shoulder and ask why I couldn't have let that foul go (we both laughed and he moved along). In your world that's a T. In mine it's a moment to communicate and build a relationship.

I misread your post, or the intention anyway. I understand what you're saying, and agree. I think in the OP the kid showed that he was a smart*** before the game started, so in that situation it's a T. A kid genuinely thanking me is not going to be a T. But a player touching me in any way other than genuine appreciation is not getting another chance to do that.

[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?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by walt

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?

Yes, because that's what the rule says to do. There is no basis in the book to resume play like he did.

[SNIPERBBB]

If the player is out of the semi absent-minded, you'd be more lenient. If the player is being obstinate, I've no problem with a T.

[deecee]

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?

Me personally, no. I would go to the kid and say, "I'm asking you do to something simple. If you don't listen it's a T. It's your choice. When I turn back around I'd recommend you be at the line." Then I walk back to the lead position. I guarantee you when I turn around he's at the line.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SNIPERBBB]

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

[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."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

If he's acting like that and I give him an opportunity to knock it off, and he slaps my ass you can bet he'll start the game with a T. There is no reason for a player to ever touch an official, not to mention him trying to show you up. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I don't think I'll convince you otherwise and vice versa. There are at least 3 other instances where I would've whacked this kid without a second thought, but that hustle pat for me is not a warning. His warning comes when I tell him to cool it with the crap before the game. It's amazing he's gotten this far thinking he can act like that. Guys who did not TCOB, along with poor coaching would be my reasons he acts like this. This kind of crap gets me fired up. What we permit we promote.

Not a chance I give a kid a T for a pat on the butt. I would start the game exactly as this crew did, but recognize immediately that #2 is nothing more than a GFU. The rest of the stuff deserved a quicker reaction and quicker technical fouls.