Lost a sneaker

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

In my area, we have been instructed to let play continue unless the shoe could cause injury. These are big boys and girls, they need to take responsibility.

That's an odd thought. You have a player in his socks, which, if they are anything like the socks I wear, are quite slick. This player is attempting to play basketball on a waxed wood floor. And you don't see that as a situation that can cause injury?

At any rate, in the OP there was no play to continue. The ball was dead. Stop the clock and get the problem fixed.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You have a player in his socks, which, if they are anything like the socks I wear, are quite slick. This player is attempting to play basketball on a waxed wood floor. And you don't see that as a situation that can cause injury?

Nope, I see it as a situation where the player can stop and put their shoe back on if they feel like doing so. Nobody's stopping them from doing that.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, I see it as a situation where the player can stop and put their shoe back on if they feel like doing so. Nobody's stopping them from doing that.

Sure, but they're not going to do that. They are going to run back on defense, slip, crack their noggin, and watch their attorny sue you for more money than exists in all the heavens and the earth.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Sure, but they're not going to do that. They are going to run back on defense, slip, crack their noggin, and watch their attorny sue you for more money than exists in all the heavens and the earth.

This is why so many people get sued. The player has every opportunity to stop and put the shoe back on. Why should an official get sued because they don't stop play to let them do that? Should that be part of our pregame instructions, "If your shoe comes off, do not continue to play. Stop and put the shoe back on."

Give me a break! Maybe I need to be kinder and gentler or maybe I don't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Sure, but they're not going to do that. They are going to run back on defense, slip, crack their noggin, and watch their attorny sue you for more money than exists in all the heavens and the earth.

Then they should learn how to keep their shoe on all the time.

You make it sound like we are going to allow a shoe to be off for several minutes. All the team has to do once they get the ball back or stop a drive and I think most of us will stop the clock. Stop being so melodramatic about something that will likely never happen the way you say it will. For those that do not know, basketball was found out to have more injuries than even football and many other sports at the HS level. I will be that most of them did not occur with the shoes off. I had a kid blow out his knee (I heard a dislocation of the knee cap) and he had both shoes on.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then they should learn how to keep their shoe on all the time.

You make it sound like we are going to allow a shoe to be off for several minutes. All the team has to do once they get the ball back or stop a drive and I think most of us will stop the clock. Stop being so melodramatic about something that will likely never happen the way you say it will. For those that do not know, basketball was found out to have more injuries than even football and many other sports at the HS level. I will be that most of them did not occur with the shoes off. I had a kid blow out his knee (I heard a dislocation of the knee cap) and he had both shoes on.

Peace

It doesn't have to be off for several minutes to be a problem. It just has to be off for one hard juke. You've already referenced the KU-Mizzou game. What happened there? The player continued playing without the shoe. Even one possession shoeless could be dangerous.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

What happened there? The player continued playing without the shoe. Even one possession shoeless could be dangerous.

Nothing we do can prevent us from the possibility of being sued. Whether the suit prevails is another issue. You said it yourself - the player is the one that continued playing without the shoe. The officials didn't force them to play. To be considered negligent an official would have knowingly and purposely set aside a rule that precipitated a dangerous event. In this case, there is no rule that specifically states that an official must stop play immediately upon seeing a player without a shoe. So if a player is injured, the player assumes most, if not all, of the responsibility of the injury, not the official.

Injuries happen all the time in sports. Would you consider stopping the game before a player slides under an airborne shooter, just to prevent the possibility of an injury? There's a good chance that player could be injured, AND you're gonna call a foul on them?!? Oh, the indignities! Sue the refs!!

Sounds silly, doesn't it? Same as stopping the game for the shoe, because of the slight possibility the player might hurt themselves. If you stay within the rules, you will not have a problem.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Sounds silly, doesn't it? Same as stopping the game for the shoe, because of the slight possibility the player might hurt themselves. If you stay within the rules, you will not have a problem.

I'm not advocating a stop at any cost. I am saying that you should stop the game during a dead ball and correct this situation. It is foolishness to continue through a dead ball with a situation like this.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

It doesn't have to be off for several minutes to be a problem. It just has to be off for one hard juke. You've already referenced the KU-Mizzou game. What happened there? The player continued playing without the shoe. Even one possession shoeless could be dangerous.

Actually the Sherron Collins of Kansas lost the shoe, picked up the shoe and threw the shoe off the court toward his bench (he was well behind the play) and went and sprinted up the court and played defense. The officials did not stop play to let him put his shoe one. Now since you know so much, what rule are you using to justify your position?

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Sure, but they're not going to do that. They are going to run back on defense, slip, crack their noggin, and watch their attorny sue you for more money than exists in all the heavens and the earth.

Maybe helmets should be required equipment.

Or, maybe it's not as much of a problem as you seem to think.

[mj]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe helmets should be required equipment.

Or, maybe it's not as much of a problem as you seem to think.

Ding, ding...we have a winnner!!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

At any rate, in the OP there was no play to continue. The ball was dead. Stop the clock and get the problem fixed.

Using what rule basis?

The ball might be dead, but you're also stopping the clock. This might give one team an unintended advantage. Maybe one team gets to set up a press on an inbounds pass that they would not have done otherwise. Maybe one team gets to sub for a winded player that otherwise would've stayed in the game. If the clock is already stopped, (foul, violation, before a free throw, etc.), I have no problem with letting the player get their shoe back on. But by you stopping the clock, you are doing something that is not necessarily supported by rule. Granted, maybe 9 times out of 10 it will not be a problem, but it's that 1 other time that will get you in trouble.