Wrong name in book

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Yes, as "changing a number" is clearly listed in the rules book. Changing a name is not.

But true story. Last week I worked a game between a private school my HS association covers and a public school that we don't cover.

At the start of the 4th quarter I'm called over to the table and told #13 is not in the book and had foul on them at the end of the 3rd. I check both books and #13 is not in either.

I was the U2, I talk to R at half court and say, "we have a T situation for wrong number in book." He says, "on who, visitors?". Me- "yup". R- "$*!%" For context, the dynamic of the game was that the V team felt like they were getting screwed based on foul discrepancy. Of course they weren't. The H team was just longer and better with some future D-1 front court players they couldn't handle. But there is a history of perception and some other dynamics at play that the R clearly did not want a T issued and says basically "handle it" or something to that affect.

I walk back over to table and visiting book and asst coach have flipped back in book to a previous game and indicate that #13 is actually #15 and they just wrote the number down wrong. I have it corrected in both books and tell H coach we are not going with a T as I'm treating it as a book keeping error and he says, "great, let's play." Signal to R we are ready to start the 4th as he is across the table ready to administer the throw in.

FWIW and additional context, I'm the R for about 90% for my HS games and have worked multiple state championships. The U1 was our association president, and the R is a D-1 official and also a high ranking officer in the military.

I'm sure many here will be appalled by our "blatant disregard" for the rules or some rhetoric but the fact is we were 3 veteran officials who ALL determined that a T in that situation was not warranted and would only make the game worse. Sometimes discretion and a little critical thinking are required.

In general with a book issue I have some leniency within reason. For example, if info is supplied at 9:50 instead of 10 minutes I'm not issuing a T where some here probably would. But I have confidence in my decision making and full support from my assigner.

In the OP situation, did we ask why the wrong name was in the book? Sometimes people just write down the wrong thing and unless there is reason to believe otherwise, I'm treating a name change as a book keeping error and playing the game.

If there is an ejection, or if the other team brings up an issue such as playing time requirements, then we have different situations. But again, if there is no reason to believe its more than just writing down the wrong name I'm not issuing a T. IMO this is one of the ways to be that guy. And that guy does not get the best schedules and is less well regarded in my neck of the woods.

So unlike in the OP, where it was determined the wrong name was supplied to both scorers, you determined the right number was supplied to the scorers and then you followed the rule and had the scorer correct their error. Literally a completely different scenario where you would have been wrong to issue a T by rule.

I'm not sure you really have a handle on this rule in the first place.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

So unlike in the OP, where it was determined the wrong name was supplied to both scorers, you determined the right number was supplied to the scorers and then you followed the rule and had the scorer correct their error. Literally a completely different scenario where you would have been wrong to issue a T by rule.

I'm not sure you really have a handle on this rule in the first place.

He most definitely has a handle on the rule. He stated that the #13 was not supplied to the scorekeeper and was not in either book. He said they found an older game in the visitor's book and #13 used to be #15.

If you are going to accuse of folks of being afraid to enforce the rules or not having a "handle on this rule in the first place", you need read for detail a little better.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Raymond

He most definitely has a handle on the rule. He stated that the #13 was not supplied to the scorekeeper and was not in either book. He said they found an older game in the visitor's book and #13 used to be #15.

If you are going to accuse of folks of being afraid to enforce the rules or not having a "handle on this rule in the first place", you need read for detail a little better.

No, he said he checked both books and it wasn't in either of them. He said nothing about looking at the roster which was supplied. He didn't look at earlier games either until after he told the R they had a technical situation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No, he said he checked both books and it wasn't in either of them. He said nothing about looking at the roster which was supplied. He didn't look at earlier games either until after he told the R they had a technical situation.

Almost all high school games I work (in the same state a VaTerp), the visiting book is the "roster" that is provided.

So what part of the rule is it that VaTerp doesn't have a handle on?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Almost all high school games I work (in the same state a VaTerp), the visiting book is the "roster" that is provided.

So what part of the rule is it that VaTerp doesn't have a handle on?

In that case, I was probably unfair in that assessment. Almost as unfair as you were for saying I need to pay better attention to details that weren't in the post.

Assuming there was no separate roster provide, is there anyone here would would not use the prior game as the roster if that caused it to be a bookkeeping error? That actually fits both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

[jeremy341a]

What is common here is you use the current game as the roster. The visitors show up with their half of the book filled out for that nights game. The home book keeper copies down that info. I would only look at that nights game. The previous games would not be the roster they submitted that night.

[jeremy341a]

In the OP I do not see how it can't be a violation of rule 10-1-1. Fail to supply the scorer with the name and number of each team member who may participate.

John Doe participated yet his name was not supplied to the scorer.

If they had two names switched than they did not violate 10-1-1 However then they would need a number change and have violated 10-1-2c

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

What is common here is you use the current game as the roster. The visitors show up with their half of the book filled out for that nights game. The home book keeper copies down that info. I would only look at that nights game. The previous games would not be the roster they submitted that night.

In my case, they had a roster that the V asst coach gave to the person doing V's book, which was then supplied to the official scorer. They all had it wrong.

They flipped back to a book to say where it was correct but I did not even look. I got it corrected and moved on.

IMO too many here our too concerned with litigating every technicality of their interpretation of a rule that is outside of the spirit of the rule.

If that works for you or is the expectation where you work then so be it. Thankfully, that's not the case for me and my assigners.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But adding a name is. If the name isn't there, it has to be added. The resumption is that the name is the golden value and numbers are changed to match them. If the name isn't there at all, then it is added and given a number.

Agree to disagree I guess. There was a name and number in the book. The rules clearly state how "changing" a number should be handled. It is not clear on "changing" a name. "Adding" is not the same as "changing."

Originally Posted by Eastshire

So unlike in the OP, where it was determined the wrong name was supplied to both scorers, you determined the right number was supplied to the scorers and then you followed the rule and had the scorer correct their error. Literally a completely different scenario where you would have been wrong to issue a T by rule.

I'm not sure you really have a handle on this rule in the first place.

I'm quite sure that you don't have a handle on the situation I described or my grasp of the rule.

Originally Posted by Raymond

He most definitely has a handle on the rule. He stated that the #13 was not supplied to the scorekeeper and was not in either book. He said they found an older game in the visitor's book and #13 used to be #15.

If you are going to accuse of folks of being afraid to enforce the rules or not having a "handle on this rule in the first place", you need read for detail a little better.

Exactly.