Player pushes Official

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Suppref

add up to a head coaches disqualification.

When a player fouls out he becomes bench personell, in Ct anyway!!

Suppref:

I do not know to which IAABO Board you belong (I don't have either my H.S. or College IABBO Handbooks in front of me to look up what Board covers Norwalk), but if I were you I would start studying the rule book and the Refresher Exam. I know that there are questions on the Refresher Exam (because I am on the IAABO Rules Examination Committee) that deal with when a disqualified player becomes bench personnel.

So, my charge to you is to tell me Forum when does a DQ'ed player becomes bench personnel?

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Suppref, I just checked the IAABO website. Norwalk, is in Board #9, and Board #9's Intepreter/Trainer is Lou Filippetti, and Lou is a personal friend of mine, so you had better have the correct answer for the Forum.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Suppref:

I do not know to which IAABO Board you belong (I don't have either my H.S. or College IABBO Handbooks in front of me to look up what Board covers Norwalk), but if I were you I would start studying the rule book and the Refresher Exam. I know that there are questions on the Refresher Exam (because I am on the IAABO Rules Examination Committee) that deal with when a disqualified player becomes bench personnel.

So, my charge to you is to tell me Forum when does a DQ'ed player becomes bench personnel?

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Suppref, I just checked the IAABO website. Norwalk, is in Board #9, and Board #9's Intepreter/Trainer is Lou Filippetti, and Lou is a personal friend of mine, so you had better have the correct answer for the Forum.

Mark, he knows the rule. He's advocating "finding" three more techs on him after he's DQd so his coach can feel the pain, too.

[Texas Aggie]

At the risk of repetition, keep in mind that the player isn't DQed until the coach is notified. If you call what amounts to a fifth foul (or a flagrant, or second T), the player is not DQed until you notify the coach. So don't think that you can't make another appropriate call just because you know its his fifth foul (or whatever).

this forum is just not the place to take things as seriously as was directed at me.

If you are offended at being called out for being wrong, I have a hard time believing you've officiated basketball for 20 years. We take being right and wrong on this forum seriously, just as we should.

Your opinion about the coach's relationship to his or her players is relevant to a discussion, but not to a ruling. The rule itself, already stated, is clear.

I actually think you are on to something: a DQ'd player (and players are always DQed and not ejected, regardless of the offense) shouldn't get a free verbal shot at the officials before the coach is notified. Yes, a T would give them 2 shots, but with free throw shooting these days...

Anyway, I'd support a change to make a coach more responsible for his soon to be DQed players still on the floor. But for now, we work the rule as written.

[Smitty]

The post you're responding to is 11 months old. Not sure why 'mathuc' felt compelled to share his not very compelling anecdote and resurrect this thread....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Players are always DQed and not ejected, regardless of the offense.

By rule, I believe that you are correct, but here in the Constitution State we have to fill out "ejection reports" for players who are "disqualified" for a flagrant foul, or for having been charged with a second technical foul, in addition to coaches who are really ejected, as in "You're Outta Here".

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Suppref:

I am on the IAABO Rules Examination Committee
...


MTD, Sr.


P.S. Suppref, I just checked the IAABO website. Norwalk, is in Board #9, and Board #9's Intepreter/Trainer is Lou Filippetti, and Lou is a personal friend of mine, so you had better have the correct answer for the Forum.

Wow. That is so far out of line it makes me wonder what the association is doing putting the likes of this guy on a rules committee. He's actually threatening a poster on an internet forum with going to his buddy the interpreter because he doesn't like the poster's commentary? The poster "better have the correct answer" because the interpreter is a friend of his?

Nonsense such as this hurts the credibility of all of us. Getting a rule wrong is one thing; it happens and, as well all know, most officials question their own rulings as much as anyone who sees them or hears of them. But threatening retribution for an event you weren't involved in on the basis of internet forum postings is reprehensible and inexcusable.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Wow. That is so far out of line it makes me wonder what the association is doing putting the likes of this guy on a rules committee. He's actually threatening a poster on an internet forum with going to his buddy the interpreter because he doesn't like the poster's commentary? The poster "better have the correct answer" because the interpreter is a friend of his?

Nonsense such as this hurts the credibility of all of us. Getting a rule wrong is one thing; it happens and, as well all know, most officials question their own rulings as much as anyone who sees them or hears of them. But threatening retribution for an event you weren't involved in on the basis of internet forum postings is reprehensible and inexcusable.

Get a grip.

[archangel]

I enjoy this forum for the 3 sports I officiate. I'd like to think I'm a better official due to this forum, and want to thank those intelligent posters, including Mr DeNucci, for all their help.
Being a "glass half full" type of guy, I'm just going to believe that Mark probably regrets the "threat" comment as being a bit overboard, and move on.
The Forum Moderators are the only internet police we need here...

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by archangel

I enjoy this forum for the 3 sports I officiate. I'd like to think I'm a better official due to this forum, and want to thank those intelligent posters, including Mr DeNucci, for all their help.
Being a "glass half full" type of guy, I'm just going to believe that Mark probably regrets the "threat" comment as being a bit overboard, and move on.
The Forum Moderators are the only internet police we need here...

If you're an archangel, shouldn't you not need a forum like this one?

BTW, which archangel are you?

[archangel]

I wouldnt presume to put myself in that class. Has more to do with a nickname from when my sons were younger.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Wow. That is so far out of line it makes me wonder what the association is doing putting the likes of this guy on a rules committee. He's actually threatening a poster on an internet forum with going to his buddy the interpreter because he doesn't like the poster's commentary? The poster "better have the correct answer" because the interpreter is a friend of his?

Nonsense such as this hurts the credibility of all of us. Getting a rule wrong is one thing; it happens and, as well all know, most officials question their own rulings as much as anyone who sees them or hears of them. But threatening retribution for an event you weren't involved in on the basis of internet forum postings is reprehensible and inexcusable.

It's okay... you're new here.