In-game protest considered by State tourney admin?
 

https://youtu.be/D9aTz0JcDSk

Try, as much as possible, to disregard announcers other than their description of activities.

Sheesh. “Coach, by rule you need one defender in each bottom lane space. You’re welcome to talk to your other three players if you’d like.”

Done. Easy. End of conversation. Go shoot the shots and move on.

This is what happens when an official doesn’t know the rule and negatively injects him/herself into the game as a result.

I guess the WIAA (WA) has a protest allowance like Georgia does. Ok fine. Larger issue at hand is how silly and preventable this whole charade was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm confused by what he was arguing. It sounded like he wanted the 15 seconds to talk to his players after he had already replaced the disqualified player.

"Sorry coach, we're playing ball. You can call a timeout if you want. Otherwise, I need two at the bottom of the lane, you can talk to the other three if you'd like"

If I read the situation correctly, he had not replaced the DQ'd player. The player at the table was already there before the DQ and was for someone else. The officials brought that player in assuming it was for the DQ.

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.

The coach blames the officials for their loss.
 

Agree.

To be fair, in my last post I was not aware of the DQ element. That adds a layer of complexity. But this still could have been handled better by both sides. I will focus on the officiating take-away here. Slow is fast. It seems like the crew was more interested in preventing the free time-out shenanigans than administering the sequence correctly. If indeed the coach claimed that the player at the table was there to replace a player other than the DQ'd player, then I'm apt to say, "Ok, that's fine coach, you have 15 seconds. Timer, give me a horn please." Now he's got his 15 seconds. Good luck doing anything with such a short amount of time, but if it makes him feel like he's smarter than me, that's fine.

But....after 15 seconds and another horn, I'm going to say, "Coach, I need your sub immediately." If a player doesn't stand up and start walking to the table right then and there, I will serve some tea, especially in a situation where I know the coach is trying to milk a free timeout. If this isn't the situation, i.e. the DQ truly caught the coach off guard and it doesn't appear he's trying to game the system, I'll probably give a few more seconds of slack.

I don't go looking for Ts for replacement intervals. I'll usually provide a very short grace period. But if you're being cute and trying to do with 15 seconds what teams used to do with 30/20 seconds (which is the reason the interval has been shortened over the years to begin with), then as another of our posters often says, "play silly games, win silly prizes."

I always told coaches they could do whatever the heck they wanted to. Depending on what they did there may be consequences. I would not give a coach any leeway that wants a "free" TO to talk to their players. I also would make it clear that in relation to a FT he needs 2 on the bottom spaces. If he fails to do so, oh well.

Oftentimes, at the HS level, we talk to much to be good "game managers", but good game managers don't talk a lot. They pick their moments.

There were 2 defensive players right there, with one in the lower spot. Administering official could have just told other to get in the other lower spot. Administer first FT.

Agree. There was ultimately no harm.

Why do we say it isn't a free timeout. It more or less is. While it isn't actually a timeout, there is nothing in the rules that restricts how they can use the time....only that it ends when the sub is provided and the sub must be provided by 15 seconds. They are given the 15 seconds to pick the sub AND to instruct the team on how they are going to adapt to losing the DQ'd player.

And it isn't free...they get it at the expense of losing a player.

If he can get all his players to run from the far end of the Court and hurdle while he's also choosing a sub within that 15 second time period, more power to him.

But the argument that he was not allowed to confer with his team therefore he was put at a disadvantage is bogus.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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.

Had Renton’s opponent only been in 1-1, and not double bonus—could Renton’s coach in theory gotten a long unofficial timeout? While he is talking to his four on the floor—what is is stopping the assistant from replacing the DQ player with S6, then nearing the time players set, bring S7 to the table to replace S6 who slowly walks toward the bench. Rinse and repeat until he’s on his last legal sub.

Wouldn’t that be legal?

Yes. First things first, you have to take care of the DQ situation. But then your scenario could very well play out. Also could apply in a multiple throw if he decided to pull such a stunt after the first throw.

Coaches use the staggered subs trick all the time to lengthen dead balls and give their players a few extra breaths. Your scenario would be nothing more than an exaggeration of this ploy. If it happens, I would probably chuckle more than anything else, but I'd also go over to the table to make sure the scorer is tracking who comes off so that they don't try to go back in before time runs off. We can have fun for a while, but there's a rule-based limit.

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.

Inform The Head Coach ...
 

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."

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.

The Constitution State ...
 

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.