I know when I am officiating the little kids I call a time out for them to tie there shoe. I have also seen this done on a Junior College level. Is that OK for the NCAA? Yesterday's game a player almost lost his shoe and was stuck trying to put it back on the official was right there and didn't do anything about this? What are your opinions on this and do you call it on whatever level you ref at?

--Denny

Younger kids, I do stop and let them tie the shoe. But for the older levels, play continues unless a whistle causes a dead ball. Once the ball is dead, though, I always wait to put the ball in play again until the shoe is tied. I saw that situation last night, too. It looked odd and perhaps unfair, but I believe the official did the right thing by not stopping play.

I used to stop play.
 

But this board changed my thinking, this year.
I do what these BIG Boys tell me they do.
Like Todd, lower levels yup: upper levels nope.
mick

The rules don't address stopping play to allow a player to tie his shoe. But it does address when to stop play when a player is injured. If you want to stop play for this, use those rules as a guideline. But I wouldn't stop play for such in any level above junior high.

I understand what you are saying, but what about the player who gets injured because he didn't stop to tie his shoe and sprains and ankle or worse? Also we are supposed to be watchful of advantage/disadvantage, isn't that a big disadvantage for one player to be down the court giving 4 on 5... or say the person with the ball has his shoe untied and the defense is on it... s/he can't move. Just some thoughts (not argueing...yet:))

--Denny

I like the idea of above junior high you let them play until a dead ball and then wait for them to tie a shoelace. I like to add " put a double knot in there to keep it from happening again"
Junior high and below I'll stop it whenever I feel it's prudent.

A player can stop and tie his shoe anytime he wants too. If he sprains his ankle, it's not because you didn't stop the game to let him tie it. It's because he didn't tie it properly to begin with. When a player steps onto the floor, he's required to be properly equipped. I see no reason to believe that he doesn't have a responsibility to make sure his shoes are properly tied.


The player placed himself at a disadvantage when he didn't properly tie his shoe. It's like MOFFICIAL said. Tie a double knot and there won't be a problem.

Denny,
We have a lot of responsibilities on the floor, but <b>babysitting</B> is not one of them. ;)

I'm not sure all the parents would agree with that!!!

Does Fox40 make a pacifier?

If so can we give it too the coaches? ;) I agree with you bbref and MOFFICIAL...thanks for your insight.

--Denny

I'll wait to stop play at the Jr. High level unti the team of the player with the untied shoe gains possesion. Coaches go crazy when it stops a fast break, but that's the way it goes.

The rules do address this problem. I am not kidding you when I tell you that in the 1962-63 season the National Basketball Committe of the United States and Canada (the predecessor to the NCAA and NFHS rules committes) made an editorial change by deleting an a sentence within Rule 2 that had previously given the officials the authority to stop the game so that a player could tie his shoes. It was felt that a player should be able to tie his shoes such that they should not become untied during the course of play. This decision is still in effect until the NCAA and NFHS makes a rule change or interpretation to change. See the NFHS Basketball Handbook for 2000-01 and 2001-02 on page 13, year 1963. I do have a copy of the NFHS publication of the 1962-63 NBCUSC rule book but it is too late in the evening to go dig it out of the filing cabinet at this time.

Help me understand
 

Mark,
With the deletion of that sentence in 1963, and by not adding that the Official may not stop the game, I fail to see the implication. If that sentence was deleted in 1943, or 1983,.... If it isn't in today's book, in my mind, it just becomes an unwritten officials decision.
My guess is that the decision is still <b>not in effect until it is written</b>
mick

The Rules Committee specificially stated in the editorial revision that the dropping of the sentence allowing the game officials to stop the game so that a player could tie his shoes was to prohibit the official from stopping the game for such a purpose.

The dropping of a sentence from a rule is a rule change. A change stays in effect until the rule is changed or an interpretation changes it; it does not matter whether the rule was changed in 1943 or 1983. Plays get dropped from the every year but that does not mean that the cease to exist. Until a rule is changed that would affect a casebook play it still is valid. While not everyone may have access to the 1962-63 rule book or the 1942-43 or 1982-83 rule books for that matter, officials have a wealth of information at the disposal.

I refered to the NFHS Basketball Handbook as one of two sources for the shoe lace time out problem. In the current Handbook on page 13, Year 1963, it specifically states no time is allowed to tie a shoe lace.

To say that since the we do not know about the rule change that was made in 1962-63 means that we do not have to abide by that rule change is incorrect. And we cannot use the Elastic Power clause which is R2-S3 in both NCAA and NFHS rule books.

In summary, in 1962-63 the rule was changed to not allow officials to grant themselves time outs so that a player could tie his shoe. The Rules Committe did this by deleting a sentence in Rule Two and gave the reason for this in an editorial comment. Therefore, the Rules Committee's decision still stands until the NHFS and NCAA change the rule.