Interesting Technical Situation
 

Watched this situation unfold the other evening at a local high school varsity boys game.

Team A turns the ball over in their front court. Substitute B6 has reported to the scorer and is waiting to enter the game. The center official (opposite table) sounds his whistle, sticks his hand to up signal to the other official to hold play. Substitute B6 is beckoned on to the playing court by the center official.

B6 enters the court and reports to B1 that he is being replaced. During this, the new trail official has administered the ball for the throw-in that Team B recieved as a result of Team A's turnover. Play is stopped instantly when the trail official realizes that Team B has 6 players on the court.

A technical foul is assessed to Team B for having more than five players on the court.

Is this an administrative technical for having more than five players on the court? Is this a technical foul in B6 for entering the court (even though he was beckoned)? Is this a technical foul on B1 for not leaving the court?

The official who beckoned B6 on to the floor did not come in and tell the calling official that he beckoned him on, and instead went ahead and agreed with assessing the technical foul.

When I spoke to one of the officials after the game (a good friend), I asked how they assessed the technical foul. He said that they charged the technical to B1 for not promptly leaving the court. :confused: Rules citation?

The old dogs will be here soon enough for the dotting the "i"s and crossing the T's part of discussion. But that just sounds like an official rushing to get the ball in play. I know I've rushed also but player did have permission to come on the court.

Unless the player leaving is slow as molasses AND being a butthead ,giving a T for this is not good. IMHO...

If I'm trail, it doesn't happen. If I'm R, there is no effin way I'm going to allow a T to be assessed in this situation and the T and I are going to have a little "chat" when we get to the locker room. If I'm not the R, I'm still having that chat. No way I would penalize a team because one of my partners was an idiot.

The FIRST thing and I truly mean FIRST thing I say in a pregame is "DON'T EFFIN INBOUND THE BALL UNTIL YOUR PARTNERS ARE READY." What, did I stutter?

Once the officials screw up and put the ball in play while one team has six people on the court, there is nothing that can be done to avoid assessing a technical foul whether we like it or not. The rules simply require it.

True, that this was the mistake of the officiating crew for not communicating better, but the ball became live and that's the end of it.

The technical foul is not charged to any specific individual. It is a TEAM technical foul per 10-1-6.

I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm charging the T on this one. It's the equivalent of a cop getting in your car and asking how fast your car can go before giving you a speeding ticket.
This isn't even like the officials forgetting to count. The kid was beckoned onto the court.

So are you going to erase the game action which took place?
Are you resetting the game clock to what it was prior to the throw-in and re-doing the throw-in as if the play never happened?
What rules support do you have for that?

2-3 supports anything I want it to support. Since one of my partners being an idiot isn't covered expressly in the rules, I am using that clause to fix the situation without a T.

If we have definite knowledge of time, we'll reset the clock. If not, we're moving on. We are after all only talking about a couple of seconds here.

I believe that is a very poor attitude to take.

This is a game played by humans and officiated by humans. Mistakes are certain to occur. I believe that one should deal with them according to the prescribed methods, not as one simply feels like doing.

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.

There are times when you simply gotta do what you gotta do. No T here.


If you feel that you must quote a rule to justify, this play is a poster child for 2-3.

Danger Will Robinson
 

2-3 states that "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules."

It is a slippery slope to use this rule to make the situation conform to one's sense of fairness when one perceives fairness to be at odds with a procedure specifically covered in the rules.

2-3 is not a royal charter, nor a grant of omnipotence to the R, nor are the rules writers authorizing a do-over.

Oh, and if someone starts lecturing me to "don't effin" this that or the other thing as the first words out of his/her mouth in pregame, I'm going to have questions about his/her professionalism.

By this, I'm hoping you meant that they threw the ball out of bounds or violated, and so the ball was dead when the C whistled. First time I read it I was imagining C interrupting the game to bring in the sub!

As for the substantive question: I think it depends. If the trail has administered the throw-in too quickly as the substituted player is still leaving the court, I think it would be a misapplication of the rules to call a T on B for trail's poor mechanics.

However, I can also envision a situation where the substituted player is meandering off the court, the ball is put in play, and he turns around as if to participate. Especially if B has already been warned about this kind of delay, I could see calling a T here.

I would think that this would fall under the "intent" of the rule. No T from me on this one.

I have stood there with my hand up only to have my partner not verify my count and inbound the ball early.

TWEEEEEEEET! Hold on sparky (Glare at partner). :mad:

No T from me either.

Are you kidding me? You have said some silly things, but this is one of the sillier ones in relation to the situation described. If the C blows his whistle and the sub is beckoned and the ding-dong T brings the ball in anyway, you're going to call a T for 6 players on the court? You're going to penalize the kids for an official's mistake. Brilliant.

Don't worry. My shoes are sticky. I won't slide down the slope. ;) Ummm, if I'm not mistaken, we are charged as officials to ensure the game is adjudicated fairly.

Quote:

THe Intent and Purpose of the Rules (pg 7 of rule book) The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense. Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

Ummm, obviously, you are reading that without the context of how its said. I appreciate that you don't know me and would automatically assume I must be some sort of heathen. Believe me, I am fairly well known within the two associations I work and tend to say things with humour. (Think Padgett but I am much better looking) It still remains though, that its the first thing I mention in a pregame because I have been burned a few times.

I agree that's the penalty if a T is assessed.

In the OP -- if the C still had his/her hand up, waiting for B1 to leave, then the ball never became live, despite U2's best efforts. No T, reset everything, administer the throw-in.

If C dropped his hand, indicating play should resume, and the U2 administers the throw-in, then you have no choice but to assess the T.

(Of course, maybe it's a stretch to assume C used proper mechanics. So, change the above to "if C knew before the ball became live that B1 hadn't left, no T. Otherwise T.")

This is a case of officials not being on the same sheet of music. A total communication breakdown. Effective Communication between partner is a must. The trail fell asleep and I would have not given a T in this case due to the fact that C clearly had his hand up to allow the sub in. It is also up to the C to relay the information to his partner that he indeed beckoned the sub on the floor. Once again, EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

This is what isn't clear in the OP. Did C signal that play was ready to begin? Was C under the impression the ball was again live? Or was, in his mind, the ball still dead because he was waiting for the substitution to be complete?

Whether C is using proscribed mechanics or not, if the ball is dead in his mind, he has the ability to say "I'm still holding up play for this to complete. The ball never became live."

Obviously if I'm standing on the court with my hand up like I should be in the situation it's much easier to explain, but regardless, the ball is dead if I (as an official) want it to be.

The C sounded his whistle, beckoned the sub, and was holding up play. It is not clear from the OP whether he had his hand in the air or not. Either way, if I'm the C, as soon as I see the ball in play, I'm blowing the whistle hard, resetting everything, and then playing on. To me a "T" here is wrong. I do not see this as 6 participating and can easily differentiate those situations from the OP. I agree 2-3 can be a dangerous and slippery slope but here the C obviously was not ready for play to resume.

I had this exact situation in my game last week. I was in C standing at mid court holding my hand up to stop play as I turned and watched the replace player begin to trot to the bench at the other end of the court. As he passed me I watched him and then looked to the end line where my partner had just put the ball in play. My partner looked at the player trotting off the court, then looked at me with my hand up. No one said a word, except in the locker room where my partner apologized for not seeing my hand up. We couldn't justify giving the team a T for our mistake.

If my partner would have acted like he was going to I would have blown my whistle and come in and emphatically informed him of the entire situation.

Exactly!

IMHO, this is a crew screw up. The players did everything right. If there's a T, it's a team T on the crew. There is no way the crew can justify a T on the substituting team here.

One of the realities of officiating is that there is (almost) always a correct way to do something, and a (sometimes) a right way to do it. The difference between a really good official and a great one is the ability to do the right things when required. Doing that absolutely requires knowing the correct way. It also requires the ability to discern when the correct thing is the wrong thing. Then you need to have the stones, presence, credibility and people skills to pull it off.

But this OP is really simple and routine. It is each official's responsibility to ensure this never happens. All three officials screwed this up.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ak...smiley-033.gif

Bravo!

Ditto.

The ball becomes live on the throw-in when the administering official, the T in this case, places it at the disposal of the thrower. That's the rule. This has nothing to do with what the C or L are doing. The C can't prevent the ball from becoming live if the T puts it in play. The best that the C can do is blow the whistle as he observes the T handing the ball to the thrower, at any point after that, it is too late.

The crew screwed up. The team gets penalized. No one likes it, including me, but that's how the rules work. We don't get to set them aside when we don't like them.

I disagree. The ball is not live if I (as an official) want it dead. If I observe a foul, but drop my whistle, the ball is dead even if it takes me 5 seconds to blow the whistle.

Same here. I'm C. T administers the throw-in, it is still dead if I'm standing in the middle of the court, because, as an official, I have called the play dead. By your reasoning, the second T hands the ball to the thrower, it's too late. Even if I hit my whistle three times before he hands the ball. Because, by your reasoning, if he doesn't hear it and goes ahead and administers the throw-in, it's live.

a2d

Got a rules citation to back up your disagreement?

It is true that a foul or violation makes the ball dead, not the officials whistle per a rules fundamental, but the play which we are discussing here is going in the reverse direction.

We are talking rules here, not opinions.

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).

Amen.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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 :D , since it was partially my fault.

The OP's conditions however are different.

Dramatically, so. The team was following the officiating crew's instructions to a "T". There is a ZERO.ZERO-continuing% chance that I am going to allow a technical foul to be issued, in this situation.

CMH=Columbus

Unless, of course, they are intentional or flagrant, right? Other than that, I agree.

If he's holding off his partner and his partner puts the ball in play anyway, I'm pretty sure he'll be whistling and stopping play so quickly nothing much can happen.

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.

Of course, you have a rules citation to support that statement, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.:cool:

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Nevada,

Coach tells A6 to report to table as he's standing barking instructions to team, A6 walks around coach and is now on playing floor.

What do you have?

You don't know some of my assignors : D

I thought you said you think independently and don't follow like sheep...:p

Nice!!!!

No, I can't. Can you?

Do you know my opinion of what should have been done in that DQ situation?

Yet you do worship at the idol of Howard.

Pardon me, if I don't choose to take his word as gospel.

2-3 doesn't apply because there ARE rules that cover this situation.

Administer the T and hopefully, the crew and the players and the coach will do better next time.

Beckon, wait... and COUNT.