Answering 'Rules' questions during a game

[Raymond]

Backdrop: Locally there was an HS regional softball (girls fast-pitch) play-off that ended when the winning run scored because of an illegal pitch. The illegal pitch was caused by the defensive coach placing a fielder behind the catcher.

Supposedly the coach asked the plate umpire before the play if this positioning was legal and his response was "Coach you can do whatever you want".

So, in our b-ball games, how do you handle similar type situations? If a coach asks if he can do "XYZ" would you quote the rule or give the answer allegedly given above.

What if the coach were to ask "What does the rule book say about 'XYZ'?"

[Fritz]

If it is a quick question during a timeout or other stoppage that doesn't slow us down, I don't have a problem answering it. Ignoring the question, watching them do the wrong thing and calling the violation just opens up more trouble that you could have easily avoided with a 15 second answer to the initial question. But that's just me -

[Adam]

I'll answer a direct question anytime.

Provided it's asked in the appropriate manner, I have no problem communicating with coaches. This time of year there always seems to be a plethora of concerns

Coach: Do we get it at half court?

In 3-5 years if they are fortunate enough, absolutely. But not today sir/ma'am.

Coach: Can we run the baseline?

Absolutely, but I'll call the violation because there was not a made basket.


Saying "coach you can do whatever you want" & then making the call against them when they do it, is not good GM.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Saying "coach you can do whatever you want" & then making the call against them when they do it, is not good GM.

Agreed, especially when the ump new this move would decide the game (and if I read the OP correctly he must have). At least in basketball our actions never DIRECTLY decide the outcome of a game (ie. a FT must still be made after a technical) so if we give an answer like this it's almost a little more excusable. I find this action as bad as it gets as he knew this would end the game and it didn't have to be that way.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Agreed, especially when the ump new this move would decide the game (and if I read the OP correctly he must have). At least in basketball our actions never DIRECTLY decide the outcome of a game (ie. a FT must still be made after a technical) so if we give an answer like this it's almost a little more excusable. I find this action as bad as it gets as he knew this would end the game and it didn't have to be that way.

In your opinion it would have been OK if it happened in the 3rd inning and the defensive team was up by 5 runs?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If a coach asks if he can do "XYZ" would you quote the rule or give the answer allegedly given above.

I'd certainly tell him he could do "XYZ", but not "YMCA", especially if he was going to use costumes and music.



It gets worse.

YouTube - Faces Of Disco - Britains Got Talent 2009 Ep 6

[IREFU2]

I will answer a quick question, but I will not give a clinic. If the coach insists on asking such questions, he will have to take a TO and then he has 30 or 60 seconds to get his answer.

[Tio]

I believe that any reasonable question deserves a reasonable response.

If a coach asks for clarification on a rules interpretation, I always start the reply: "By rule.... ". But rather than quote the rule, I use "rules verbiage."

"Coach, by rule, the ball is placed at the point of interruption on an intentional foul."

I like this because it puts a coach in the position of choosing to disagree with the rules vs. disagreeing with our interpretation. Of course, the key to using this is you better know the rule. :>

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Tio

Of course, the key to using this is you better know the rule. :>

Like when there is an intentional foul, by rule, the offended team gets the ball at the spot nearest the foul after the free throws?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Like when there is an intentional foul, by rule, the offended team gets the ball at the spot nearest the foul after the free throws? (not always POI)

Actually, I'm not sure it is ever POI on an intentional foul. Maybe if there is a double intentional.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, I'm not sure it is ever POI on an intentional foul. Maybe if there is a double intentional.

I was kinda wondering myself where he was going with that.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, I'm not sure it is ever POI on an intentional foul. Maybe if there is a double intentional.

I changed mine to eliminate the statement in parentheses, although my point was that POI and the spot closest to the foul are generally close enough to each other to be the same location.

The obviously not POI times are - foul away from the ball, foul by an offensive player and a foul on a made try.

Intentional fouls on a person with player control will result in the location being very close to POI, and my experience has shown that these make up a majority of intentional fouls.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Intentional fouls on a person with player control will result in the location being very close to POI, and my experience has shown that these make up a majority of intentional fouls.

The "Point Of Interruption" is not a location.

Originally Posted by Rule 4-36

Point of Interruption
ART.1 . . . Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an
interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal,
double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10.
ART.2…Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the
ball was located when the interruption occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this
activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when neither team is in control and no
goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved when the game
is interrupted.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I changed mine to eliminate the statement in parentheses, although my point was that POI and the spot closest to the foul are generally close enough to each other to be the same location.

The obviously not POI times are - foul away from the ball, foul by an offensive player and a foul on a made try.

Intentional fouls on a person with player control will result in the location being very close to POI, and my experience has shown that these make up a majority of intentional fouls.

As has been pointed out, POI is not a location. It's more involved. While spot of the foul and POI may in fact lead to a similar conclusion, they are not the same thing. Personal fouls (including the intentional and flagrant ones) are always "spot of the foul," unless they are doubles.