I've never seen statisticians sit in the bench area, neither, yet they are specifically listed as bench personnel in the rule book (4-34-2).

Again, I never said it was wrong to give a tech, only agreeing that in that situation... For game management purposes... Giving a tech may not be the right thing to do. And the case book even says that handing out a tech in some game management situations would not be ideal.

So should we do nothing? Probably not as there was clearly a situation that should be rectified, especially since the only person that can say they were or weren't distracted may very well lie in order to get what they want to try and win. Bringing back the old adage "that's why we make the big bucks".

And the rule book states in 2-3 "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules", which grants us the ability to make rulings in situations like this that are not clearly laid out by either the rule book or the case book.

Game management is one of the most important things we do as officials, so you're damn right I'm going to keep that in mind when making decisions like in the OP. I'm very sorry you don't like it, and it frustrates you oh so much, but I assure you my assignors will appreciate me re-administering that FT rather than handing out a tech and very much pissing off a coach and his AD, or doing nothing and pissing off the other team, and both having pretty good reasons for feeling the way they do.

We're not robots, no matter how much some fans wish we were. And when it comes to some situations they'll be glad we aren't.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Obviously, I’m not going to change your mind and if your assignors and the other people who matter in your area, perhaps coaches, ADs, and folks who work for the state office, are all okay with you making up your own way of handling a problem, then so be it and carry on. However, that is a sad situation.

For anyone else reading this forum who prefers to administer this situation properly, I’ll again write that attempting to use 2-3 is obviously wrong because the NFHS rules do provide for a way to deal with situations in which team supporters interfere with the game. How officials are to deal with this is spelled out in the note to 2-8-1. Why BryanV21 chooses to ignore this and instead go his own route is baffling. Why he continues to contend that this situation isn’t covered by the NFHS rules after the exact passage covering such has been posted for him is inane. Perhaps he is afraid to assess the proper penalty and charge a technical foul.

So for the final time, the ONLY penalty which an official may impose due to interference of a spectator or supporter is a technical foul. The official does not have the ability to award points, take points away, remove time from the clock, restore time to the clock, take possession away, award extra FT attempts, or any other strange remedy that might seem fair.

Real officials adhere to the real rules. What BryanV21 is attempting to pass off as game management is just doing things his own way because he feels that such will encounter the least amount of resistance. I don’t believe that he understands what game management actually means. It certainly isn’t making up a resolution that splits the difference in an attempt to make both sides happy. The referee is not expected to be King Solomon.

It's bullshit replies like this why I stopped coming here for a while. Some people can't have conversations without the personal attacks.

So I'll leave you on your high horse.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Nevada is right, you're not. Take it how you want, but continuing to insist on dong it the wrong way by considering cheerleaders bench personnel in order to give a replacement FT is just silly. He's given you the rules covering this. Citing 2-3 and "Game Management" is a effectively translated as "I don't know the rules so I'll just make something up and stick to it.

I'll only add that I don't see evidence in the OP that the cheerleader's actions affected the shooter.

" B team cheerleaders enter the floor at division line as A1 is in his shooting motion"

Neither Teammates Nor Opponents ...
 

No, because I consider A2 to be a teammate and not an opponent. I consider cheerleaders to be neither teammates nor are they opponents, they're fans (with rare exceptions), and this situation is not a "normal" distracted (hindered) free thrower situation "specifically covered in the rules".

Affect The Shooter ...
 

Agree, but what if they do affect the shooter. Possibly with loud music playing (not permitted at this time), or cheerleaders (of either team) doing somersaults within the peripheral vision of the shooter (on the court, also not permitted at this time). Ah, there's the rub.

While I disagree with Nevadaref (though he sets up a good argument) I do not take the same approach as BryanV21. I am not calling cheerleaders bench personal, nor am I calling them opponents, nor am I evoking the free throw distraction rule (I could explain this to a coach without using the word "distraction"). I am evoking two stand alone rules, 2-3 (points not specifically covered in the rules) and 4-20 (unhindered try).

If there was loud music playing and cheerleaders (of either team) were doing somersaults and forming pyramids within the peripheral vision of the shooter, I would not consider that to be "unhindered", as the intent and purpose of the rule stipulates.

However, if a few cheerleaders were simply barely on the court milling around at the division line, I'm not sure that I would consider that hindering.

There is a distinction between non-participants simply being on the floor or those non-participants being on the floor and distracting the shooter.

IMO, that discussion needs to occur and have a decision before the 2nd free throw. Once you moved on to the 2nd free throw, I see no reason to go backwards in time.

I started reading the comments but I stopped when NevadaRef made a comment that rivaled, in length, some of my comments of olde. That said...

1a) Yes, Cheerleaders allowed on the Court but only during specfic times that are defined in the Rules: a) 60-Second TOs and b) Intermissions (Halftime and between the QTs and OT Periods.

1b) I always pre-gamed with the Squads from both Teams as to when they can be on the Court.

2) From the description of the Situation, the 1st QT was not over until A1's 2nd FTA was completed. Which means that no Cheerleaders (Team A or Team B) should not have been on the Court, which leads to...

3a) I know that it was a Two-Person Crew, but what was the non-Reporting Official doing while his/her Partner was reporting the Foul?

3b) I will readily admit that Cheerleaders will not understand the nuances of Item (1a) but Team B's Cheerleaders were already at the Division Line when A1 started his Shooting Motion meaning that Team B's Cheerleaders were already moving onto the Court before the Ball was placed at A1's Disposal for his 1st FTA which means that A1's 1st FTA should have been shut down before it ever started and the Cheerleaders removed at that point.

4) I will admit that each Official in a Two-Person Crew 17% more duties than a Three-Person Crew has to during FTs which makes it is imperative that the FT Process is not be rushed. Taking and extra five seconds during the process will increase the chances of a Third World Play will NOT happening.

MTD, Sr.

Voice Of Reason ...
 

Ah, a voice of reason. Is that really you Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?