Interesting Technical Situation

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

When the person telling you how something ought to be called is the commissioner of your association, and also is someone who has been on the rules committee for upteen zillion years, and STILL DOES RULES CLINICS ALL OVER THE STATE, you do it the way he says to regardless of what the rule book says, or what you think. That's just the way things are, Nevada.

Only if you are too weak to stand up to that person's tyranny.

The great thing about a free country is that each individual gets to decide if he will compromise his principles and integrity for personal gain.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

nevadaref,
Perhaps the Classic Case of "By the Book" vs. "Spirit of the Rules" if there ever was one.

If memory serves, there is a Case Book play that you have stated you will ignore because "it is flat out wrong." (The case involved a player participating while not in the book).

Nonetheless, the Rules Committee has determined that is the way that they want all of us to call the play. You indicated that you would live with your decision to ignore a Case Play if confronted by your assignor.

The difference is that I am simply taking the side of those who originally wrote the RULE several years ago, and refusing to following the mistaken interpretation authored just this past year by the few individuals who currently make up the committee. I firmly believe that they have made an error and I am not willing to blindly follow their incorrect guidance when the plainly written rule states otherwise.

It is a matter of voicing one's convictions instead of following like a sheep.

[Ignats75]

Nevada old boy. You need to get down off your high horse. While I did not quote a rule citation (other than 2-3), I did quote the "Preamble" that is the paragraph before rule #1.

Also, you may not like it, but I don't work for the Federation. I work for the Ohsaa and the assignors who choose to use me. If I don't follow their instruction, I'm unemployed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Nevada old boy. You need to get down off your high horse. While I did not quote a rule citation (other than 2-3), I did quote the "Preamble" that is the paragraph before rule #1.

Also, you may not like it, but I don't work for the Federation. I work for the Ohsaa and the assignors who choose to use me. If I don't follow their instruction, I'm unemployed.

Hmmmm.... none of those responses were directed to you. I certainly wasn't trying to attack you personally or offend you.

You have made it clear how you feel about this play and how you are going to deal with it. I've come down on the opposite side. If that means that I am on a high horse, then okay.

Each of us will have to answer to our governing authority for our actions/decisions. I'm going to make sure that I have rules backing if I get called in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

In the situation in this OP, you are going to allow an OBVIOUS error by the officiating crew to punish a team who has done NOTHING AGAINST THE RULES!!!

My fellow Buckeye from the North in this case is, in my opinion, much more correct about this situation. Our job is to make the game fair. This situation is clearly NOT FAIR to the team making the substitution. People wonder why coaches dislike referees. It is stupid situations such as this that fuel that fire.

Your words got me thinking about other situations that are obvious mistakes by the officials and yet a team gets punished having not done anything wrong.

5.2.1 SITUATION E: During the pregame practice period, the visiting team
properly uses the east goal and the home team the west goal. The officials, by
mistake, allow the jumpers to face the wrong direction to start the game. A1 controls
the tap by tapping the ball back to A2. A2, realizing that he/she had warmed
up at the basket behind A1, dribbles to that basket and scores an uncontested
basket. RULING: Score the basket for Team A. The officials should stop the game
and emphasize to both teams the proper direction. The mistake is an official's
error by allowing A1 and B1 to face the wrong direction; not a correctable error.

7.5.2 SITUATION A: Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. The
administering official by mistake, puts the ball at B1’s disposal. B1 completes the
throw-in and Team B subsequently scores a goal. RULING: No correction can be
made for the mistake by the official after the throw-in ends.

So would you follow the rules in each of these cases or nullify the action under your sense of fairness?

I happen to approach officiating from a different direction than you. You have stated that you believe that the job of the official is to make sure that the game is fair. In contrast, I believe that the official is supposed to be a fair and unbiased arbiter of the rules. There is a difference between applying the rules equally and fairly to each team, and doing whatever one wishes in order to make the outcome of a situation jive with one's sense of fairness.

A very wise and experienced official once told me not to worry about what I thought was fair because the people who wrote the rules had already decided what was fair for me.

[Ignats75]

Although it wasn't directed at me, my high horse comment wad directed in response to your rather harsh comment to Julie.

FWIW your other examples aren't quite the same thing and I would agree with your take on doing things by the book in those cases. The T scenario was 100% the officials fault. In the others there are some mitigating circumstances.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Only if you are too weak to stand up to that person's tyranny.

The great thing about a free country is that each individual gets to decide if he will compromise his principles and integrity for personal gain.

Yup that's me, lol! I'm all about compromising my principles and sacrificing my integrity for personal gain.

[Adam]

I'll ask it here, too.
How is this situation different than the one in which the official tells the coach his player is DQd with 5 fouls, but later wonders whether he had the coach's attention so does not issue the appropriate penalty when said player returns to the game?

[just another ref]

What if your partner beckons the sub in while the ball is live? Would we call a T then for 6 on the floor?


What if the sub stands and is immediately beckoned by the official, and walks straight onto the court. Would we call a T for failing to report to the scorer?

The possibilities are endless.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Yup that's me, lol! I'm all about compromising my principles and sacrificing my integrity for personal gain.

Isn't it amazing how that guy can see right through you Juulie, see right down to the very core of your character and come up with his truly enlightening insights about you. He's amazing.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to assume this is caught almost immediately, otherwise the OP doesn't make any sense. There shouldn't be any action to erase; simply pick up at POI. Now, if the team actually has 6 playing ball, that's a different story.

Look, if the officials forget to count and 6 play, call the T. That's the coach's fault pure and simple. If, however, an official beckons a player onto the court and his teammate promptly leaves, there's no way I'm calling that T. The spirit and intent of this rule is to prevent a team from actually having 6 players play, not to penalize a coach for an official actually calling him onto the court.

Rule support? The applicable Ts here are:

1. A sub coming in without being beckoned. This isn't applicable.
2. Having more than 5 players "participating simultaneously." Define "participating" for me here, because the play I'm envisioning does not have them all actively participating.

Precisely, saved me plenty of typing. Additionally, with C having stop signal, hand up it gives erroneous information to player still on court. He rightfully sees officials signal that ball is still dead.

One of our top clinicians in Illinois preaches that there will be no T's in this almost exact situation. It's about being fair.

I make this call in a close varsity game, and it's back to Saturday morning B games from all assignors.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Only if you are too weak to stand up to that person's tyranny.

The great thing about a free country is that each individual gets to decide if he will compromise his principles and integrity for personal gain.

Wow, Hitler, Rasputin, Idi Amin last time I looked were tyrants. never lumped assignors in that grouping.

Me thinks Nevada is grasping a little here and letting fly the platitudes.

Hopefully you'll come your senses if this situation occurs.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

When the person telling you how something ought to be called is the commissioner of your association, and also is someone who has been on the rules committee for upteen zillion years, and STILL DOES RULES CLINICS ALL OVER THE STATE, you do it the way he says to regardless of what the rule book says, or what you think. That's just the way things are, Nevada.

Gee, Juulie. Are you referring to Howard? And I don't mean Avery.

[Back In The Saddle]

Tyrant is a generic term meaning, "A person who does not agree with me but who has power or influence over me."

[Adam]

Nevada, can you explain to me how this is different than the situation where the official tells the coach his player has been DQd; but after that player returns to the game questions whether he had the coach's attention?