Last night (JV, V double), the JV visitors brought 5 players to the game and in the 4th period (Home team ahead) one of the visitors fouled out. (Officials were well aware of foul counts on individual players.)

In an act of sportsmanship, the DQ'd visitor was allowed to continue participating by agreement of both coaches and one (eventually both) of the referees. (Visitors closed the score, but Home team won.)

When the player went back onto the floor, even the fans applauded the sporting move.

Okay. ...Peachy.
*******
I was uncomfortable with the decision based upon liability.

Now, we had an illegible player we allowed. Playing outside the rules set forth by NFHS, if that player gets injured, or injures another player, everyone in charge of managing the game seems to be at risk. When I agreed to allow the player, yes, I considered my house, my home.

Thoughts?

mick

Not subject to debate - the player comes out of the game.

Of course, there are two ways around this:

(1) If the home team wants to make things equal, they can keep 5 men on the floor but have one player just stand to the side and not participate.

(2) (A bit more of a stretch) Bookkeeping errors can be corrected at any time. The officials could (note - I'm not endorsing this, just tossing it out there) say that the 4th foul on A1 was really supposed to be the 3rd foul on A2. A1 then doesn't have 5 fouls, and is eligible to play.


While there is the problem of liability, I worry more about what happend if the visitors come back to win. Home coach is going to be steaming mad, will probably file a complaint with the state, and the visitors may very well lose the game for playing with an ineligible player, and could face harsher penalties.

I understand that NASO will defend officials in liability cases. Will they defend you if NFHS rules are deliberatly set aside as we have here?

Thanks, Stan

OK in light of my events from last week I've strayed away from what COULD have happened.

Visitors did not come back to win so no question there. No one got hurt/injured (dont have to worry about that) However as I understand the story the HOME team allowed VISITOR DQ'd player to coome back in the game. Not on my floor I say. File this one to the assc and let them handle it. I dont like the situation either. 5 is 5.

This happened to me in a junior high game my first or second year. One team had about 12 players and was very good -- the other had five players and all five of them were horrible.

The visiting team (with five players) fouled a lot because they were not very good, so sometime in the third quarter one of the players fouled out. The score was very lopsided at this point and the home coach said to let that player remain in the game. I didn't even think about it and allowed the player to stay in -- it was the right think to do, imho.

At the high school and lower levels I think that we have to remember that it is about the kids -- not the game. A little common sense can go a long way even when we do something that is not technically by the book.

illegible???
 

Some players are like that... you just can't read 'em. :D

What about having five fouls though (ineligible)... can't participate. I don't think I would allow participation in anything above a junior high game... and maybe not even these lower levels... I think it might really depend upon the tone of the game and the coaches, players, crowd etc.

Re: illegible???
 

Oh, my!
Too old.
Too cold.
Left-handed.
mick

If I was a fan/parent attending a game where a kid had 5 fouls (And team only had 5 players) I would like to see the game continue as 5 vs 5 and I probably wouldn't understand why a referee would object to this.....however if I am the referee in this game there is ABSOLUTELY NO way do I allow a player to remain in the game when he/she has picked up 5 fouls . There is a reason that this player has 5 fouls and I am not going to open myself (Or the other team...even if they agree to let the player remain)) to a situation that could really backfire on me . The only benefit I see to allowing the player to remain is to be a nice guy ( and I normally am) and the negatives far outweigh this . Say the player who had fouled out (Supposedly) fouls again and injures someone ??? Where does the blame lie....you guessed it ! You can certainly be as understanding as possible to all parties involved but under no circumstances should a player who fouled out be allowed to remain . Just one man's opinion....

Well, as ridiculous as it sounds, maybe you could get both coaches to sign some quickly drawn up waiver allowing the kid to play. But, even if you don't do that, I don't see how the ref could be held solely liable since both coaches suggested and agreed to the condition.

The problem arises, though, with the point brought up by someone else - will the game degenerate into a foul-fest since players know they'll keep playing regardless? My son played in a HS summer league last summer, with fouls called, but no limit on the personals a player could accumulate. In one game, an opposing player realized he could hack at will, and had accumulated around 10 fouls before the coach removed him from the game. You could see the tension level rise with each foul, and, though they tried not show it, the officials grew weary of it, as well.

We've had this sitch locally.

A team with 5 or 6 players only ,and one player nears 5 fouls.

If it is a blow-out, the refs get together (having always known who had 3+ fouls on that team) and if a teammate of foul-trouble is near the fouled player when foul-trouble common-fouls again, that teammate is getting the foul.

If it's a close game, then we do it properly.

WHAT!??!
 

Forget liability, why even have fouls? Why even have rules? If there is no penalty what exactly would keep players in line? The main reason players keep nice (usually) is to stay out of foul trouble and do what they came to do (play). So, in effect eliminating that for one player is ridiculous. What happens when the best (or any play for that matter) on the other team fouls out? He as well as the other player must sit. I have myself been in the same situation wanting to let them play, but you just can't the unintended consequences are just too great. A dangerous precedent, I don't even have to begin, is set.

I guess we are all want to, I'm just saying there are ethical, if not technical reasons we should not.


Torpid123

You should check with a local lawyer about the legality of that waiver. We checked about similar waivers, and were advised by a lawyer(who is also a member of our association) that a waiver drawn up like that was not legally applicable, and that we were still liable under our insurance. Iow, the waiver wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

And I suspect that a good lawyer could argue that by signing the waiver you were admitting to wrong-doing before the fact.

Bottom line: if a player fouls out he's got to go. If the coaches want to do otherwise then YOU should go. I do like Mark's suggestion of reassigning fouls but it might have been easiest if you kept track of who was in trouble and you could have "reassinged" B1's 5th as you were making your way over to the table.

That suggestion isn't too bad, but of course, in the original case, our fouler was out on the wing with a big crash. :cool:
mick

[Edited by mick on Jan 26th, 2004 at 10:33 AM]

Lialbility
 

Interesting question concerning the liability and if our insurance would cover an injury. As far as letting the kids continue to play, it sounds as if it is a pretty low key situation and everybody was on the same page and unless players started to take advantage of a no foul out rule it would be fun for all the parties involved so I see nothiing wrong with it. Sounds like another form of good sportsmanship which is certainly lacking in today's competition. But until we find out what our insurance underwriter says I would be pretty cautious.

Everyone appears to be creating a situation that does not, vfrom Mick's description, appear to have happened. We have a JV game, which is all training activity in my book anyway. These games are to prepare kids, and playing 5 on 4 does nothing for the home team. so home coach agrees to let the player stay in.

If the player decides it is license to foul without repercussions, the 6th foul can be the last. Nobody said you were stuck with this player for the rest of the game, regardless of what happens next.

the idea is to give these kids a good contest, and if both coaches agree to this, I fail to see a major problem ethically. Liability, I guess could come into play if this player goes and hammers somebody and severely injures that player. but that can happen at any time. Having seen Micks posts for several years now, I doubt he would have agreed if the game were looking like one where a terrible situation was fixing to develop. Actually, the home coach would not want that player on the floor if he thought it looked like a potentially bad situtation.

I take my teams to warm-up tournaments where fouls don't count, with certified officials reffing the games. I watched my players in several "5 quarter" JV scrimmages where fouls didn't count. These were run according to NF rules with the exception of the extra quarter and nobody fouling out. Were the refs at risk for reffing these games? If not, I fail to see a real risk to the ref for allowing this player to continue with the agreement of both coaches.

So we draw the line at the Varsity level in terms of 5 fouls and you foul out ? I agree with you that lower levels of basketball are about learning the game but I also think that part of learning basketball is learning what is and what is not a foul (and obviously the limit you have) . You are just exposing yourself (As a referee)to a myriad of issues if you allow a player to continue on past the 5th foul and being the "good guy" is just not worth it . In my earlier post I agreed that as a parent /Coach I would like to see the player continue to play but as a referee I can't believe that a lot of you would even consider it, especially at a High School level (Obviously this would not happen at the Varsity level....I don't think). I was referring more to rec ball from 6th to 8th grade or Men's leagues . This situation should not be decided by the coaches as it is clearly not theirs to make . It may not be the most popular thing to tell the coaches that the player cannot continue but they will understand and move on . If they really want to even the playing field let 'em go at it 4 on 4 :)

If the other team has 5 or more healthy eligible players they must play; they can have a pow wow near there sideline and just chill there while the game is going on, but there must be 5 reported in.

As for the main issue I would have to say that if both coaches agree and the game is under JH, I would give the coach an option. "Number 23 can foul one more time, if that foul is flagrant, you are charged with a direct technical." I still don't like this idea much, but at least here are some options.

-----------------------------------------------------------
That's my thought, and I'm sticking to it! Until told to do otherwise by wiser individuals!

When I first read this post I thought that there's no way I'd agree that letting a player with 5 fouls stay in the game is the right thing to do in any situation. Then I started thinking of other rules we let slide on lower level games. How many of us have let slide the 10 minute rule for having names, numbers and starters in the book at lower level games? Is letting the 5 fouls rule slide any less significant than that. Ultimately I decided, for me at least, that you can't let the 5 foul rule slide under any circumstances. What you could do is, if you were aware the kid had 4, not call a fifth unless it was a really obvious one. Or you could remind the coach that one of his kids has 4 and he better be careful not to pick up a fifth. But if a kid does get a fifth, he's gone. Blame it on the coach for letting one of his kids get into foul trouble when he only has 5 players. But it's not my fault. Find a way to try and prevent it from happening, but if it does happen, we have no choice.

That's what I get for trying to be funny ! I knew someone was gonna call me out on my "4 on 4" comment.....

after one more person goes out, I believe that 3 on 3 has to be moved to a halfcourt game with a running clock!

hmmmmm...... Running clock! I love it!

NF rules state that the officials shall rule on all things not covered by the rule book. Number of fouls is covered and it says 5 and you are gone. That is not a judgement call and certainly nothing can be lost in interpretation because 5 is always 5. Why should I change the rules because one team only brought 5 players. I might look like the bad guy but I will always have the approved rules for the game to back up my decision. Our job is not to make the game as equal as possible. Our job is to apply the rules of basketball to the game. If one team or the other knows and follows those rules better they will benefit but I am not going to change rules or call differently to make it equal. And why would I ever change numbers on a foul. If there were two people that fouled at approximately the same time and one was in foul trouble calling on the one not in foul trouble is one thing. But to call a foul commited by one individual on a teammate in close proximaty that did not foul is simply unethical. Rules are rules. Maybe the reason we catch soo much flack from coaches, parents, and fans is that some of us stick to the rules and others seem to do what seems oppropriate at the time. If the NF wants to change the rule to give me the liberty at a lower level game to allow a player with 5 fouls to continue playing in the spirit of good sportsmanship than I might. Until then lets call it by the rule book.

I wasn't suggesting reassigning the fifth foul, but maybe the first or second one called in the game was written in wrong.

And, of course, your memory is perfect. ;)

If you allow a player to continue with 5 fouls and his 6th foul causes an injury, you have just given a litigeous society ammunition in the all to likely suit against you.

Unless the league specifically has such a provision, I'm not permitting it in any game I do.

As Smity was refereing to, how does this compare with other rules we let slide. I say it doesn't. Scorebook rules, a little slide of the pivot foot (even 2-3 extra steps in some cases), 5 seconds in the lane, 12 to get it across half court, etc. don't involve contact and can't be construed as having a potentially dangerous result.