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.

Mark,
I agree with your reasoning, but I do not know that rule.
As noted above, ...somewhere, I have taken to "not calling a play stoppage" due to this forum's influence.
If it was, in fact, actually written, how do we relay such information to new officials?
If there are many more of these "un-determinations", then the continuity of understanding and enforcement of the rules has a major schism which should somehow be addressed.

And further, What grade were you in when the rule was "mediated"? Fifth? Seventh? And how the heck did you find it. I'm impressed.

mick

Thanks
 

Mark,

Thanks for your wealth of knowledge... I won't call timeouts anymore for that one. Got another question for you however, If I call a timeout for a hurt player... player wants to stay in and says s/he is fine, does coach have to sub? How does that work?

one reason you get paid the big bucks
 

Denny,

That is a judgement call on your part. A good rule of thumb is if you stop the game, and you know that the situation is not life-threatening, give the bench the stop sign in order to keep coach and/or trainer from sprinting onto the floor. If the bench personnel comes, the player then goes.

After that, talk to the player and make your own determination if they are able to continue safely. If so, just resume play.....if not, then beckon help from the sidelines. Remember however, you can never err if you work on the side of safety.

Here's what I was told...
 

Mind you, I am not working with the best officials (prob why they are still working younger kids). Here is what happened...

A went up for the block, B put the shot in and also inadvertently poked A in the eye (I was Lead at the time). B was doubled over with his hand covering his eye, I blew the whistle to see if he was ok, (I am also a medic...hard to not medically attend to any injuries in a game) he was fine "it just stung for a second". My Partner went over and told the Coach, even though the boy was fine and could play, that he had to sub because we stopped the game. I questioned him after the game and he said anytime I stop the clock for an injury, the coach has to sub.

Thoughts?? Comments??

Your partner was Guessing....
 

Denny,
I think you got your players confused.;)

In the Basketball Simplified and Illustrated Rules (1999-2000), the <b><i>Comic Book</i></b> states and shows:
<b> 3-3-4</b> - <i> the official stops play for an apparently injured player. Number 4 is actually not hurt and wishes to remain in the game. Since the official has not beckoned for assistance and no bench personnel have entered the court, and since all this has occured within a few seconds, the official allows #4 to continue.</i>

There is a related case, <b>3.3.4B</b> where the player leaves because the coach came onto the court.

mick

LOL OK, A was doubled over...

I have to agree with Mick
 

Even though the 1963 rulebook comment states that no delay should be granted, the committee didn't have the cojones to make it a rule or note permanently - therefore it is not a rule.

A more current example is 20/30 second timeouts. Some think that players must stand, but there is no rule mandating this. There was a suggestion in the comments on the changes in 1997-1998 that the players remain standing but this was not made into a rule.

We have an Adult Tourney going on (55th year). The tournament recruits NCAA Dl, and Dll officials and just the other day a player was tying his shoe and the official blew the ball dead when his team had the ball. I guess my question would be..... Is this a normal call for him in college? I personally do not blow the ball dead for someone tying their shoe

AK ref SE

AK ref SE,
I would suggest that in an adult tourney, a lot of those players have to work in the morning, and that some extra caution was applied and spiced with some common sense.
mick

Re: I have to agree with Mick
 

The 1997-98 example regarding twenty second timeouts is not germane to this discussion. As I have stated before, the effect of deleting any section or part of a section from a rule is to change the rule.

Prior to the 1962-63 season, the rules stated that the officials could stop or delay play so that a player could tie his shoe laces. The Rules Committee deleted the sentence in the rules that allowed the officials to stop or delay play for that purpose. Then the Rules Committee, in an editorial comment, specifically stated why the sentence was deleted, and that reason was that the Rules Committee did not want officials to call an "officials timeout" in order to stop or delay play so that a player could tie his shoe laces. Untied shoe laces are not a safety hazard; a player can stop and tie his shoe laces anytime that he wants, and if he wants to stop or delay play to tie his shoe laces, then the play must call a team timeout.

Since the rule book does not state that officials CAN stop or delay play for the purpose of letting a player to tie his shoe laces, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that officials CANNOT stop or delay play for that purpose.
Nor can an official rely on the Elastic Power clasue (R2S3 in both the NCAA and NFHS rule books) for this purpose.

One may not like the rule but that does not give one the right to ignore it. Having said that are there any times when I would stop or delay play so that a player could tie his shoe laces? Yes, this past weekend I officiated the Ohio Special Olympics State Finals and there were a couple of times when we did just that. But, for adult, jr. H.S., H.S. freshmen, jr. varsity, and varsity, college, and AAU national tournament games, I would adhere to how the Rules Committe wants the rules interpreted and the game officiated.