Interesting Technical Situation

[jdw3018]

No citation. Just the common sense that says while I am conducting an administrative procedure in which the ball is dead that another official handing the ball to a player isn't administering the throw in, it's simply handing a dead ball to a player.

If I grant a timeout just as an official is handing the ball to a player, but don't blow my whistle immediately, the ball never became live. In this instance, even though I didn't blow my whistle as the T is handing the ball, it never became live because I blew it dead again (even though I didn't blow my whistle right away).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

No citation. Just the common sense that says while I am conducting an administrative procedure in which the ball is dead that another official handing the ball to a player isn't administering the throw in, it's simply handing a dead ball to a player.

If I grant a timeout just as an official is handing the ball to a player, but don't blow my whistle immediately, the ball never became live. In this instance, even though I didn't blow my whistle as the T is handing the ball, it never became live because I blew it dead again (even though I didn't blow my whistle right away).

That's what I thought. Someone on the crew screwed up and you aren't happy about it, so you don't wish to follow the written rules and enforce the prescribed penalty. You can make all of the excuses that you want to justify doing whatever you wish, but the bottom line is that you are simply refusing to handle this by the book.

If you are comfortable telling your assignor that, then that's fine. It's up to you.
Personally, I don't like screw-ups by the crew either, but when they happen, I'm d@mn sure going to follow the rules in dealing with them.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's what I thought. Someone on the crew screwed up and you aren't happy about it, so you don't wish to follow the written rules and enforce the prescribed penalty. You can make all of the excuses that you want to justify doing whatever you wish, but the bottom line is that you are simply refusing to handle this by the book.

If you are comfortable telling your assignor that, then that's fine. It's up to you.
Personally, I don't like screw-ups by the crew either, but when they happen, I'm d@mn sure going to follow the rules in dealing with them.

Ask your assignor his opinion on the OP, but say it with you giving the T. I'd like to know his response.

[Ignats75]

When I was still in referee class to get my license, we had a state rules interpretor speak who also happened to becan assignor for one of the largest conferences in the Cleveland area. He closed his talk by saying, "there are correct calls and there are right calls. Good officials know the difference. Anyone can spew the correct call back from the rulebook. Common sense and experience will help you make the right call."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

When I was still in referee class to get my license, we had a state rules interpretor speak who also happened to becan assignor for one of the largest conferences in the Cleveland area. He closed his talk by saying, "there are correct calls and there are right calls. Good officials know the difference. Anyone can spew the correct call back from the rulebook. Common sense and experience will help you make the right call."

There is always some official or assignor or supervisor who believes that he knows the best way to handle everything. All this does is display his ego and superior attitude. Such people believe that they know better than all of those who came before them and took the time to discuss, agree upon, and write down the regulations by which the contest shall be governed.

Sadly, we now have "Big Joe" walk in and decide that such and such a rule isn't a good one and he isn't going to make that call or isn't going to enforce it or isn't going to have "his officials" make that call.

That kind of behavior is very egotistical and downright sad.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is always some official or assignor or supervisor who believes that he knows the best way to handle everything. All this does is display his ego and superior attitude. Such people believe that they know better than all of those who came before them and took the time to discuss, agree upon, and write down the regulations by which the contest shall be governed.

Sadly, we now have "Big Joe" walk in and decide that such and such a rule isn't a good one and he isn't going to make that call or isn't going to enforce it or isn't going to have "his officials" make that call.

That kind of behavior is very egotistical and downright sad.

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.

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. If you explained this situation to a group of 200 coaches (NOT during a game, but in a meeting setting), I can't imagine a single coach would EVER want this technical foul called!!! It is not a fair way to administer the game.

The REFEREE CREW beckoned the player onto the floor. THE REFEREE CREW created six players on the floor. ONE MEMBER OF THE REFEREE CREW ATTEMPTED TO START PLAY. THE REFEREE CREW CANNOT penalize a team when ONE OF ITS OWN screwed the pooch by putting the ball in play early.

As you indicated in the other thread concerning the Case Book play you will ignore and take the heat from your assignor, I will likewise take the heat from my assignor for following the "Spirit of the Rules." While I have a high regard for your knowledge of the Rules Book, I am disappointed that the "Spirit of the Rules" never has a place.

For all of the younger officials (AND experienced officials!!!) reading this thread, hopefully you will see the incredible importance of taking the extra 2 to 3 seconds EVERY TIME you inbound the ball to make eye contact with your partner(s). Imagine a State Championship being decided by a Technical Foul being called in this situation on a substituation with 5 seconds left in a tie game. For the official so tied to the Rules Book (even though several posters have pointed to potential "By the Book" solutions) that they will call a Technical Foul in this case, I certainly do not want them doing my games (that I am either coaching or reffing).

[Ignats75]

Clinton-Massie?

You know, years ago I was coaching an 8th grade CYO team. One game we subbed a player and I couldn't get the other player to come off. Referees involved didn't notice I had 6 on the floor. I had no problem; well OK not entirely true but I didn't get wacked , since it was partially my fault.

The OP's conditions however are different.

[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.

[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.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is always some official or assignor or supervisor who believes that he knows the best way to handle everything. All this does is display his ego and superior attitude. Such people believe that they know better than all of those who came before them and took the time to discuss, agree upon, and write down the regulations by which the contest shall be governed.

Sadly, we now have "Big Joe" walk in and decide that such and such a rule isn't a good one and he isn't going to make that call or isn't going to enforce it or isn't going to have "his officials" make that call.

That kind of behavior is very egotistical and downright sad.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

No citation. Just the common sense that says while I am conducting an administrative procedure in which the ball is dead that another official handing the ball to a player isn't administering the throw in, it's simply handing a dead ball to a player.

If I grant a timeout just as an official is handing the ball to a player, but don't blow my whistle immediately, the ball never became live. In this instance, even though I didn't blow my whistle as the T is handing the ball, it never became live because I blew it dead again (even though I didn't blow my whistle right away).

Here is the problem with your way of thinking and handling such a situation.
If you don't use the moment that the administering official places the ball at the disposal of the thrower, making it live per 6-1-2b, as your point of no return and determination of when team members are "participating" (as defined by the NFHS in 10.5.3), then you have absolutely no standard by which to decide when it is too late to cancel all of the action.

To further make my point, consider the following:
Would you assess a T if the mistake was caught while:
a. the thrower was holding the ball and yet to attempt to pass it inbounds
b. the thrower had passed the ball, but no inbounds player had yet to touch it
c. the throw-in pass had been caught inbounds by a teammate of the thrower
d. the throw-in pass had been caught inbounds by an opponent of the thrower
e. the throw-in pass had been caught inbounds by A2 and he had not yet dribbled
f. same as e, except now the player had dribbled for 2 seconds
g. same as f, except make it eight seconds
h. play continued for only four seconds, but a player committed a foul
i. play continued for ten seconds and a goal was scored by the team with six team members on the floor.
j. same as i, but it took only two seconds for Team A to score a goal

Where do you draw the line, if you don't follow the rules book and the case book?

[Ignats75]

Your hypotheticals have nothing to do with the OP because in none of those cases is the C standing with his hand up waiting to let the last player finish leaving the floor.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here is the problem with your way of thinking and handling such a situation.
If you don't use the moment that the administering official places the ball at the disposal of the thrower, making it live per 6-1-2b, as your point of no return and determination of when team members are "participating" (as defined by the NFHS in 10.5.3), then you have absolutely no standard by which to decide when it is too late to cancel all of the action.

To further make my point, consider the following:
Would you assess a T if the mistake was caught while:
a. the thrower was holding the ball and yet to attempt to pass it inbounds
b. the thrower had passed the ball, but no inbounds player had yet to touch it
c. the throw-in pass had been caught inbounds by a teammate of the thrower
d. the throw-in pass had been caught inbounds by an opponent of the thrower
e. the throw-in pass had been caught inbounds by A2 and he had not yet dribbled
f. same as e, except now the player had dribbled for 2 seconds
g. same as f, except make it eight seconds
h. play continued for only four seconds, but a player committed a foul
i. play continued for ten seconds and a goal was scored by the team with six team members on the floor.
j. same as i, but it took only two seconds for Team A to score a goal

Where do you draw the line, if you don't follow the rules book and the case book?

I don't care what's happened. If I'm standing on the court with my hand raised holding the action, the ball is dead. No time is coming off the clock, no scores are counting, no fouls are being committed. The ball is dead, the game is stopped.