In-game protest considered by State tourney admin?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I think we've all been in that situation where a coach, knowing it's the 5th foul, has sent a sub to the table by the time we get to the table to report that 5th foul and then we just wave the player in.

Official: "Coach, that's #15's fifth foul."

Coach: "I know, I've already sent my substitute in."

But stated with the tone (accompanied by appropriate posture and gestures), "I know you f*****g idiot, I've already sent my substitute in."

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

And therein lies the coach's argument, imo. With the assumption made by the officials regarding the substituting player already at the table, the coach wasn't given his 'by rule' 15 seconds.

I think we've all been in that situation where a coach, knowing it's the 5th foul, has sent a sub to the table by the time we get to the table to report that 5th foul and then we just wave the player in. This situation just wasn't that case, the officials got a little ahead of themselves, and then they got what they got.

Concur with this situation estimate. The crew getting a little ahead of themselves is not a huge deal. As you say, we've all been there. What caused problems was not taking a deep breath, swallowing pride, and then offering the coach his 15 seconds.

Based on the article, the coach was not happy with the officiating that night. So while speculating, I would guess that coach-crew communications weren't great by this point in the game, which probably contributed to the crew's hesitancy to approach and discuss the situation more professionally.

[BillyMac]

Makes me glad that I officiate in a state where only correctable errors are correctable, where we don't have a rules committee sitting at the scorer's table thumbing through their rulebooks, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the players are above average.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

They have 15 seconds from when I start the clock.

"John, that's five." To timer, without delay: Start the clock / horn.

That sub better be ready to come in by the second horn. And then those 2 players on the FT spaces better be moving towards them.

Unlike crosscountry, I have never given leeway on this. Sub ready by second horn or we're shooting free throws.

If the coach can do that AND talk to his kids, more power to him.

Totally agree.

If that period of time was meant to be for conferring with players the NFHS would not have reduced the timeframe down to 15 seconds and would not have added a preliminary horn. They did this to eliminate that time period from being a defacto time-out. They want coaches to choose a sub and get him/her to the table.

[so cal lurker]

But what the heck was there to "protest"? He didn't get to coach the players on how to play defense on a made FT? He though they should wipe the two FTs and have to retake them?

It's also odd because (at least according to the graphic) he had three TOs left--so if talking to his team was actually his goal (as opposed to being PO'd and wanting to make a stink), he would have just called one of them--he wasn't going to need all three in 10 seconds.

[sj]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

But what the heck was there to "protest"? He didn't get to coach the players on how to play defense on a made FT? He though they should wipe the two FTs and have to retake them?

It's also odd because (at least according to the graphic) he had three TOs left--so if talking to his team was actually his goal (as opposed to being PO'd and wanting to make a stink), he would have just called one of them--he wasn't going to need all three in 10 seconds.

That's what I'm wondering too.They spent seven minutes talking about it. What exactly was he wanting changed? Announcers can't be relied on but they're saying the coach wanted to wipe off the free throws?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Totally agree.



If that period of time was meant to be for conferring with players the NFHS would not have reduced the timeframe down to 15 seconds and would not have added a preliminary horn. They did this to eliminate that time period from being a defacto time-out. They want coaches to choose a sub and get him/her to the table.

I don't get people who sit idly by during this time.

I'm in there making sure that second horn doesn't go. Coach, NEED A SUB, please.

I've had one career stare down during this interval. As the second horn blew, I whacked the coach.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Bottom-line, coach's team was not unfairly or adversely affected by the substitution. If he wanted a different player to come in also, he could have subbed that player in after the 1st free throw.

The disqualification period is not a free time-out.

In a recent game when a player picked up five fouls, I noticed a sub at the table. So, I notified the coach and then asked, "Is this the replacement?"


Doing this, I can replace the player and continue if the coach says yes (which happened in my case). If not, then it's time to follow the replacement protocol.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't get people who sit idly by during this time.

I'm in there making sure that second horn doesn't go. Coach, NEED A SUB, please.

I've had one career stare down during this interval. As the second horn blew, I whacked the coach.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I agree. once or twice i had to keep asking the coach to not let it get to the second horn, pretty sure both times T's were involved. One of the times the coach plays the "send the kid as soon as the horn sounds game." Too late, I already asked for the sub about 5-10 times. You used up all your courtesies.