T's

[mick]

Originally posted by Gary Brendemuehl
Guess I need to spend more time reading. I now agree with TH and disagree with Rut. Look at 3.2.2:

"Art 2... After the time limit specified in Article 1, a team is charged with a maximum of one technical foul regardless of how many infractions of the following are committed (See 10-1-1, 2 Peanalty):
a. Changing a designated starter...
b. Adding a name to the squad list.
c. Requiring the scorer to change a squad member's or player's number in the scorebook.
d. Requiring a player to change to the number in the scorebook.
e. Having identical numbers on squad members and/or players."

Gary,
TH and Bob agree with the reading.
I believe that they always foul the rule.
I like them.
I like to follow the rules.
I do not like that rule, because it does not seem fair to me.

I guess a reason for that rule could be that a scorekeeper could list all the names and then list all the numbers, but somehow slip a row and then have all the numbers wrong and maybe one left over. I can see where that would be penalized only once in a game.

I dunno. But, thanks for helping.

mick

[BktBallRef]

WHEW! What a post! I hope I didn't offend anyone during the course of the discussion. I'm arguing a point, not arguing with any person(s). It sounds like we're all on the same page now, except for mick, who kinda believes it but doesn't like it.

10-1-1 covers the requirement to have the lineups and starters to the scorer by the 10 minute mark. One T can be assessed if that doesn't happen.

10-1-2 covers the 5 things that can happen with the book that require a change to be made. There can only be 1 T called no matter how many changes are made in the book until the game is over. If the change is made in the book, the T must be assessed before the next live ball.

None of this has anything to do with a player wearing an illegal number. That's a completely separate issue.

Originally posted by rockyroad
Isn't it nice when the Case Book actually answers things for us...once we call an administrative T on a team for having to have someone's number changed in the book, that's it, can't call any more T's for that...as stated before, see Case Book 3.2.2A...one easy way out of that is to take a minute after the T is called and have the scorer check all #'s and names for both teams to make sure there are no more discrepancies...

We seem to have this happen at tournaments quite a bit. What happens is that a team wears different numbers based on their home jerseys versus their away jerseys. The offical scorer just copies the lineup from one day when a team is home to the book on the next day when the team is the visitor. Suddenly , we have 15 numbers that are all wrong. For that reason, we're always real careful to check the numbers, especially during tournaments.

BTW, we don't call a T when this happens.

PS- Thanks for your help Bob.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 3rd, 2001 at 04:50 PM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by mick

I believe that they always foul the rule.

Now you're sounding like a coach!

[JRutledge]

Why would you offend anyone? You just made an argument and stood by it. That is what you are suppose to do. You actually are correct on this one, but I still do not feel good about it. Because it seems to me that you could after the first mistake keep trying to deceive and having number problems. But I will look further in the rulebook, but I probably will not find anything, I haven't so far.

[BktBallRef]

Just trying to get along with everybody, Jeff. We all need more friends and fewer enemies.

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
WHEW! What a post! I hope I didn't offend anyone during the course of the discussion. I'm arguing a point, not arguing with any person(s). It sounds like we're all on the same page now, except for mick, who kinda believes it but doesn't like it.

Tony,
That's a fact!
I am tryin'.
mick

[Ralph Stubenthal]

Thanks for all the replies guys. I think we've gotten to the bottom of this. BBallRef, when I referred to you as an answer man, it was meant as a compliment, not a shot. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. Thanks for all the replies, Ralph.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
Thanks for all the replies guys. I think we've gotten to the bottom of this. BBallRef, when I referred to you as an answer man, it was meant as a compliment, not a shot. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. Thanks for all the replies, Ralph.

Consider it understood and consider this a thank you.