Unusual and weird situation resulting in ejection

[representing]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Concerning what I've underlined, I have a question concerning rules. Since the father was the scorekeeper, was he the official scorekeeper or the visitors' scorekeeper?

If he was the visitors' scorekeeper, couldn't the T be assesed being that he could be considered bench personnel due to coming on the court without permission & his repsonse to the answer to the coach?

From my understanding, bench personnel include: non-active players, managers, & staticians.

He was the home's scorekeeper, so he was part of the officiating crew, not part of the team.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by representing

He was the home's scorekeeper, so he was part of the officiating crew, not part of the team.

Well with that being the case, he didn't follow through on his duties properly then. Being the official/home book you are supposed to remain neutral at all times. Only times the table crew is supposed to leave the table is at halftime (with the official scorer staying unless someone else is available to watch the official book), & at the end of the game.

Actually concerning my point about neutrality, everyone at the table is supposed to be neutral.

[Freddy]

One calm, deserving dose of 10-3-6f would have probably avoided the whole mess.
Sorry, but this one's on you.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Freddy

One calm, deserving dose of 10-3-6f would have probably avoided the whole mess.
Sorry, but this one's on you.

ART. 6 . . . Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in such a
manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures.
c. Baiting or taunting an opponent.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
d. Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes.
NOTE: Purposely diverting an opponent’s attention by waving is different than
holding or waving the hands near the opponent’s eyes for the express purpose of obstructing the vision so that he/she cannot see.
e. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.
f. Faking being fouled, knowingly attempting a free throw or accepting a foul to which the player was not entitled.
g. Use tobacco or smokeless tobacco.
h. Removing the jersey &/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.

[representing]

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by representing

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

I'm sorry, but you didn't do it correctly. Let me present a play to demonstrate.

A1 goes up for a shot in the lane, and B1 goes up to defend. B1 blocks it cleanly, knocking it out of bounds. C calls a phantom foul. B coach goes ballistic, so the official Ts the coach.

After shooting the shooting all the shots, the C then approaches the L and asks him what he saw. "It was clean, no contact at all."

The C then decides to correct his error (time frame still applies) and retract the original shooting foul. He wipes away the points because they were unmerited.

Do you think he has rules backing for this?

And I'm sorry, but your rules interpreter shouldn't have to look this up to know you kicked it.

[Adam]

Representing, can you please answer the following question?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A1 goes up for a shot in the lane, and B1 goes up to defend. B1 blocks it cleanly, knocking it out of bounds. C calls a phantom foul. B coach goes ballistic, so the official Ts the coach.

After shooting the shooting all the shots, the C then approaches the L and asks him what he saw. "It was clean, no contact at all."

The C then decides to correct his error (time frame still applies) and retract the original shooting foul. He wipes away the points because they were unmerited.

Do you think he has rules backing for this?

The concept is similar, as a foul cannot legally be called without contact.

BTW, I would be willing to bet a game check that you would get a different answer from the NFHS.

[representing]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Representing, can you please answer the following question?


The concept is similar, as a foul cannot legally be called without contact.

BTW, I would be willing to bet a game check that you would get a different answer from the NFHS.

Ok Snaqs, point well taken.

And no, he doesn't have any backing on this by the rules as it doesn't fall under any of the 5 correctable errors.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The concept is similar, as a foul cannot legally be called without contact.

Then how could you advocate calling a block on a flop?

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by representing

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

Ignorance compounded by arrogance is a dangerous combination that will keep you in hot water. Time to add a little humility and some serious book learning to your personality profile.
Good luck with that...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by representing

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

My God, man, you were wrong and simply won't admit it. You simply don't get to define "unmerited free throws" however you want. Words mean things.

[representing]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My God, man, you were wrong and simply won't admit it. You simply don't get to define "unmerited free throws" however you want. Words mean things.

I'm not defining anything, it defines itself!

let me break it down:

definition of merit: something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation (dictionary.com)

in case you (and the some of the others) skipped 1st grade, when you add "un" in front of a word, it means the opposite or not. Hence, unmerited means opposite of or NOT deserved or justified a reward or commendation.

In this case, the free throws were not justified or deserved because no one else besides a coach, player or bench personnel (i.e. trainer) can receive a technical foul. A father (or any other spectators) or officiating crew on table cannot be given a technical foul.

REFERENCES:
Technical fouls: 4-19-5 and 10-1 thru 5
Correctable error on unmerited FT: 2-10-1b

Putting all of this together, it was WRONG of me to T up the father and scorekeeper thinking he was an AC. The FTs were unmerited, because the Technical, which resulted in both FTs, was given to someone who cannot be legally given a technical foul. Because he cannot be given a technical foul, it cannot be official in the book. End result, ejection to that person and continue play at POI.

Can't get any simpler than that. I wasted too much time getting all of this together when I should be sleeping right now, so I'm logging off for the night.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by representing

I'm not defining anything, it defines itself!

let me break it down:

definition of merit: something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation (dictionary.com)

in case you (and the some of the others) skipped 1st grade, when you add "un" in front of a word, it means the opposite or not. Hence, unmerited means opposite of or NOT deserved or justified a reward or commendation.

In this case, the free throws were not justified or deserved because no one else besides a coach, player or bench personnel (i.e. trainer) can receive a technical foul. A father (or any other spectators) or officiating crew on table cannot be given a technical foul.

REFERENCES:
Technical fouls: 4-19-5 and 10-1 thru 5
Correctable error on unmerited FT: 2-10-1b

Putting all of this together, it was WRONG of me to T up the father and scorekeeper thinking he was an AC. The FTs were unmerited, because the Technical, which resulted in both FTs, was given to someone who cannot be legally given a technical foul. Because he cannot be given a technical foul, it cannot be official in the book. End result, ejection to that person and continue play at POI.

Can't get any simpler than that. I wasted too much time getting all of this together when I should be sleeping right now, so I'm logging off for the night.

Unmerited means what the NFHS says it means, not what Webster or you say it means. I'm wasting my time with you, you know everything.

Well, except how to penalize a habitual flopper, apparently.

Oh, and that a technical can (by rule) be called against someone in the stands, if necessary.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by representing

1) in case you (and the some of the others) skipped 1st grade....

2) In this case, the free throws were not justified or deserved because no one else besides a coach, player or bench personnel (i.e. trainer) can receive a technical foul. A father (or any other spectators) or officiating crew on table cannot be given a technical foul.

1) Telling.....n'uff said.

2) This is for new officials who might mistakenly think that there's even a kernel of truth hidden somewhere in those 2 sentences. See NFHS rule 2-8-1 which states "The official shall penalize unsporting conduct by a coach, player, substitute, attendant or follower. In the NOTE underneath that, you will find "The officials may call fouls on either team if its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game." And in case book play 2.8.1 you can find this statement in the RULING- It is significant that the word used is "may". This gives permission but does not in any way imply that officials must call technical fouls on TEAM FOLLOWERS OR SUPPORTERS for unsporting act. There is a lot of additional germane information contained in the rule and case play. You should learn it so that you can properly apply it...and avoid a mess like the one representing caused. And btw, I personally doubt very much that the NFHS rules makers ever issued anything that would infer that a father coming on to the court to check on his injured son/daughter had just committed an unsporting act and his child's team should be penalized for for it. I also doubt that there's any rules interpreter anywhere that isn't aware of that rule and case play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by representing

1) Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

2) As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

1) I have too much respect for rules interpreters country-wide to EVER believe you could find one ANYWHERE to agree that the mess YOU created was called correctly. I call boolsh!t.

2) A whole bunch of very rules-knowledgable officials have just told you that you are completely wrong. Yet you continue to insist that you called the play correctly by rule. Un-freaking-believable!

I'm really not sure why you posted in the first place. If it was to get some honest feedback, then why won't you listen to the unanimous assessment of what you did wrong? And if you thought that you were going to get agreement or sympathy for the mess that you caused, you posted in the wrong place. Next time, go to Dr. Ruth. She's the one to ask for advice when you've just screwed someone.

You have one heckuva lot to learn. And you'll never learn a damn thing until you recognize that you have one heckuva lot to learn.