Wrong name in book

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Here's a tangential question that your post got me thinking about. This has happened a couple times this season to me, where they are at 9:30 or so and finishing up names in the book. I'm not issuing a T here because I don't have the clout around here to do that in my opinion. As I've mentioned in other threads, our tourney games are solely based on coaches' recommendations (i.e. no recs, they won't even consider you). However, at what point do you issue the T? What is your cut-off? If the opposing coach is savvy about the rule and gives you a hard time, what is your response? How would your supervisor respond? Just curious what everyone's take on this is.

It doesn't matter when they finish filling out the book. The only thing that matters is when the list of names and numbers is presented to the scorer. That list, not the book, is what the rule hinges on.

The custom here is to check the book with 8:00 left before the game. If the scorer hasn't received the list by then, it's going to be a T. Unless the scorer tells me when she has received the list (and that's never happened) I don't know exactly when they get it.

A different state I used to live in had the custom to check the book at 12:00. That let us prompt the coach for the roster so he couldn't screw it up.

[jeremy341a]

What if the reasoning for the wrong name was this?

Book reads
Jim Smith #5
Dan Jones #15

Real Info
Jim Smith #15
Dan Jones #5

So now we issue a T for changing numbers bc we don't have the right number listed with the right player correct or is this also a book keeper error? What if it is bc the kids switched jerseys without telling their coach?

[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.

[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.

[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 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

Did you ask/determine how the wrong name ended up in the V book?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

I work for 2 HS commissioners. One of the them has explicitly stated that he wants us to make "good decisions". If they sometimes fall outside the letter of the law, he'll take the heat.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Did you ask/determine how the wrong name ended up in the V book?

I was not at the game. To my knowledge the name was just wrote in incorrectly.

The only 3 scenarios I can really think of are

1. #5 Jv players name was wrote in for #5 in Varsity book
2. Two players have switched jerseys.
3. Complete brain fart.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

What if the reasoning for the wrong name was this?

Book reads
Jim Smith #5
Dan Jones #15

Real Info
Jim Smith #15
Dan Jones #5

So now we issue a T for changing numbers bc we don't have the right number listed with the right player correct or is this also a book keeper error? What if it is bc the kids switched jerseys without telling their coach?

Good example. You can't decide to switch names to avoid the T vs switching the numbers.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

That works for me. Wouldn't the roster be what they presented to the actually book keeper and not what was a game or two before? If the visiting book keeper filled out that nights wrong then that is what is presented to the home book keeper than the roster was incorrect. However if they presented the previous games info to the home scorekeeper than they copied that wrong I would see that as a book keeping error.