Missing Players in Scorebook

[wanja]

My practice is to allow the scorebook entry of team members who are not present. A colleague maintains that only team members that are present can be added to the book and that if a member arrives after the 10 minute cutoff and is added to the book, then a technical foul is applicable per 10-1-2b.

I am unable to identify an explicit rule or case reference that mandates either position. I'd like to hear how some other officials handle this and if their are any relevant rule or case references that support either position.

Team Technical rule 10-1 states
****
A team shall not:
ART 1...Fail to supply the scorer with the name and number of each team member who may participate and designate the five starting players at least 10 minutes before the scheduled starting time.
PENALTY: (Art 1.) One foul for both requirements.
...

ART 2...After the 10-minute time limit specified in
Article 1:
...
b. Add a name to the team member list.
...
PENALTY: (Art 2.) One foul only per team regardless of the number of infractions.

***

[Camron Rust]

I allow the listing of any name the coach wants to put in. The coach is required to provide a list of team members who may participate. No where does it define a team member as someone who is currently on the floor. A team member doesn't cease to be a team member by retreating to the locker room to attend to an injury. There is nothing restricting the listing of players that are not present so it is not illegal.

[Nevadaref]

This is a discussion which we have had on here before.
Most of us here believe that the team may list any and all team members when they submit their roster prior to the ten minute mark no matter who is physically present.
There was an IAABO interpretation which said that if a kid was late then his name could not be submitted at that time. This would force the team to add him when he arrived, and if that is after the 10 minute mark necessitate a technical foul.
As I said above most of us don't believe that is the proper interpretation.

Of course any submission or change after the 10 minute mark is a team technical foul unless it is for one of the listed exceptions.

Old threads:
Submitting the roster before the game (original discussion)

A few more questions... (see posts #13 and #14)

[rsox34]

IAABO is wrong--there is no rule that requires a team member to be present before the 10 minute mark in order to included on the roster in the scorebook. IAABO had this issue on a refresher exam last season and its answer could not be supported by rule. A team can have as many names/numbers as it wants listed in the scorebook. The player/team member may be late, hurt, , sick etc and therefore unable to participate in the warmups. The Natiional Federation rules committee should be the source for the rules and they don't penalize a kid/team for not having a team member particiapting in warmups.

IAABO should not be making stuff up. Officials should use common sense too--if a playe/rteam member is listed he gets to play.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There was an IAABO interpretation which said that if a kid was late then his name could not be submitted at that time. This would force the team to add him when he arrived, and if that is after the 10 minute mark necessitate a technical foul.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but there is no such thing as an IAABO interpretation any more than there is an OhioHSAA or MichiganHSAA interpretation. There is only an NFHS interpretation. Furthermore, I do not know of a single IAABO Board Interpreter that would make the interpretation highlighted in red. IAABO Board Interpreters follow NFHS Rules.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but there is no such thing as an IAABO interpretation any more than there is an OhioHSAA or MichiganHSAA interpretation. There is only an NFHS interpretation. Furthermore, I do not know of a single IAABO Board Interpreter that would make the interpretation highlighted in red. IAABO Board Interpreters follow NFHS Rules.

See BillyMac's post #13 in the following thread(already cited above):

A few more questions...

Note that Billy cited question #73 verbatim off of the 2005 IAABO Refresher Exam.

That is where the information is coming from-- the IAABO exam, and the IAABO doofus that gave that answer.

Stoopid IAABO monkeys......

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but there is no such thing as an IAABO interpretation any more than there is an OhioHSAA or MichiganHSAA interpretation.

So if your state interpreter or your state's governing body issues a particular ruling that is not covered specifically by the NFHS case book, you wouldn't consider that to be an OhioHSAA interpretation?

I think it's pretty obvious that there are IAABO interpretations. Any interpretation (not covered specifically by the NFHS case book) issued by Peter Webb on that conference call that was mentioned in the linked thread above would be an IAABO interpretation, no?

There was a question on an IAABO refresher exam several years ago about a member of bench personnel blocking a 3-point try. The correct answer on the test was to call a technical and award 3 shots. That seems to be an IAABO interpretation.

[Odd Duck]

Where I work in Texas players do not have to be present to be listed in the book.

I don't know about other areas, but in Texas the governing authority is NOT the NFHS...it is the Texas University Interscholastic League. Now, they happen to have adopted the NFHS rules (with minor exceptions) for basketball but that is, in no way, to be construed as ackowledgement that the NFHS has final say...the UIL retains that right.

I would imagine the same holds true in other states...there is a state organization that governs sanctioned school sporting events. As one old timer pointed out to me years ago...the NFHS is not God...in Texas, God is the UIL.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Odd Duck

the NFHS is not God...in Texas, God is the UIL.

I thought it was the NRA.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Odd Duck

Where I work in Texas players do not have to be present to be listed in the book.

I don't know about other areas, but in Texas the governing authority is NOT the NFHS...it is the Texas University Interscholastic League. Now, they happen to have adopted the NFHS rules (with minor exceptions) for basketball but that is, in no way, to be construed as ackowledgement that the NFHS has final say...the UIL retains that right.

I would imagine the same holds true in other states...there is a state organization that governs sanctioned school sporting events. As one old timer pointed out to me years ago...the NFHS is not God...in Texas, God is the UIL.

I think this is true in every state. The NFHS is, even by its very name, a federation. Which means that it's a conglomerate of individual organizations. And those organizations will always want to have the final say on any issue for their jurisdiction. And while many times they will defer to the written NFHS rules/interps, there will be times they will tweak something in a way they feel better serves their own interests.

There are "NFHS States" that use the shot clock, play halves instead of quarters, and allow the official to consult the monitor. The rules themselves even allow for some changes by state adoption.

It ain't just the UIL

[Adam]

Maybe, but don't states that diverge too far from NFHS rules forfeit the right to paticipate in rules committees? Obviously, some states decided a seat at the table isn't worth it, but there are some consequences to rule divergence.

[Adam]

Oh, and as for the OP. I think it's rediculous mucous-hunting (aka "OOO") to try to dictate who may or may not be on the coach's official roster.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Oh, and as for the OP. I think it's rediculous mucous-hunting (aka "OOO") to try to dictate who may or may not be on the coach's official roster.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now THAT is rEdiculous mucous-hunting