In-game protest considered by State tourney admin?

[pizanno]

https://youtu.be/D9aTz0JcDSk

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

[crosscountry55]

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

[Altor]

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"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

[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.

[CJP]

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...loss-to-selah/

[crosscountry55]

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.

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."

[Camron Rust]

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.

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.

[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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[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.