Words An Official Doesn't Want To Hear, "Not In the Book" ...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks for pointing this out. I just got my books a few days ago, and since October is our busiest month of the year at the laboratory, I've been too busy, lots of overtime, to even open the books. Nice situation added to the casebook. This will be helpful. Hopefully, it will never happen, but if, and when it does, we will have a specific citation to point to.

I have to remember that the fact that if a player who is not in the book plays is not a technical foul. The technical foul is for a player's name being added to the book.

When did I ask this specific question before? Not a general question about names not in the book, but one where the player plays, live balls and dead balls happen, the player comes out of the game, the name is never added to the book, and the officials are informed after all this occurs?

*3.2.2 SITUATION C: Team A substitute No. 25 reports to the table for the first time with approximately one minute remaining in the second quarter and is beckoned onto the court. In (a), the ball is put in play by a throw-in from A1 to A2. The horn sounds and the scorer informs the officials that No. 25 is not listed in the scorebook. In (b), No. 25 plays the remainder of the second quarter. During halftime intermission, the official scorer realizes No. 25 is not listed in the scorebook and informs the officials when they return to the court before the start of the third quarter. RULING: In (a), No. 25 is currently in the game and became a player when he/she legally entered the court. Since his or her name and number must now be entered into the scorebook, a technical foul is charged to Team A. In (b), no penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game. If No. 25 attempts to enter the game in the second half, his or her name and number will be added to the scorebook and a technical foul charged to Team A. (3-2-2b; 10-1-2b)

I don't agree with the ruling in part (b). The scorebook must still be changed to reflect that #25 participated in the 2nd quarter. It doesn't matter that he is no longer in the game. So now that the scorer must write his name and number into the book and check the box to indicate that he played in the 2nd quarter, this is the proper time to assess a technical foul under 3-2-2b and 10-1-2b. Nowhere in the rules does it state that a team member must be "currently in the game" in order to be penalized. Whoever wrote that case play ruling is absolutely wrong.

The NFHS gets a HUGE thumbs down on the new case book rulings and interps this season. The person writing them clearly doesn't understand the NFHS rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree with the ruling in part (b). The scorebook must still be changed to reflect that #25 participated in the 2nd quarter. It doesn't matter that he is no longer in the game. So now that the scorer must write his name and number into the book and check the box to indicate that he played in the 2nd quarter, this is the proper time to assess a technical foul under 3-2-2b and 10-1-2b. Nowhere in the rules does it state that a team member must be "currently in the game" in order to be penalized. Whoever wrote that case play ruling is absolutely wrong.

Why is this different than other infractions which have "too late to penalize" provisions? #25 participated and was not in the book. Worse things are overlooked every day, are they not?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree with the ruling in part (b). The scorebook must still be changed to reflect that #25 participated in the 2nd quarter. It doesn't matter that he is no longer in the game. So now that the scorer must write his name and number into the book and check the box to indicate that he played in the 2nd quarter, this is the proper time to assess a technical foul under 3-2-2b and 10-1-2b. Nowhere in the rules does it state that a team member must be "currently in the game" in order to be penalized. Whoever wrote that case play ruling is absolutely wrong.
...

I'm assuming you have a citation for this?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm assuming you have a citation for this?

That would be a correct assumption.

RULE 2
SECTION 11 SCORER’S DUTIES
The scorer shall:
ART. 1 . . . Keep a record of the names and numbers of players who are to start the game and of all substitutes who enter the game.
NOTE: It is recommended the team member’s numbers be entered into the scorebook in numerical order.
ART. 2 . . . Notify the nearer official when there is an infraction of the rules
pertaining to submission of the roster, substitutions or numbers of players.


PS We've discussed this issue before.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

RULE 2
SECTION 11 SCORER’S DUTIES
The scorer shall:
ART. 1 . . . Keep a record of the names and numbers of players who are to start the game and of all substitutes who enter the game.

Granted, this is one of the scorer's duties. But I think it is dangerous to start penalizing things at some later point in the game with no specific time limit based solely on memory. Where do we draw the line?
Apparently the committee feels this way too.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That would be a correct assumption.

RULE 2
SECTION 11 SCORER’S DUTIES
The scorer shall:
ART. 1 . . . Keep a record of the names and numbers of players who are to start the game and of all substitutes who enter the game.
NOTE: It is recommended the team member’s numbers be entered into the scorebook in numerical order.
ART. 2 . . . Notify the nearer official when there is an infraction of the rules
pertaining to submission of the roster, substitutions or numbers of players.


PS We've discussed this issue before.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Granted, this is one of the scorer's duties. But I think it is dangerous to start penalizing things at some later point in the game with no specific time limit based solely on memory. Where do we draw the line?
Apparently the committee feels this way too.

I'm with you on this one JAR.