Problem Player

[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.

[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.