Five fouls and allowed to continue.

[mick]

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

[Mark Dexter]

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.

[Stan]

Originally posted by mick

*******
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

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

[ace]

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.

[Brad]

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.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by mick

Now, we had an illegible player we allowed.

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

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

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

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

[WeekendRef]

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....

[theboys]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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.

[torpid123]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by theboys
Well, as ridiculous as it sounds, maybe you could get both coaches to sign some quickly drawn up waiver allowing the kid to play.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
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.
mick

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

[DJ]

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.