If the case book says the rule is only enforcable when someone is on the floor, and not on the bench, that meets the definition of "player."

Situation: Team member A31 is sitting on the bench. He has not played so far in the game. During the 2nd quarter he yells at an official about a foul call and is assessed a technical foul. It is now discovered that he is incorrectly listed in the scorebook as A33. How do you handle this?

Yes, it is a brand new ruling first published last season. I believe that whoever authored it failed to appreciate the difference between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered." The text of the penalty section for this specific rule states the latter. This is because the on-court officials aren't looking at the scorebook during the game and have to depend upon being informed of the mistake by the scorer. Therefore, the rule is written such that a team doesn't escape penalty simply because the scorer fails to duly inform the officials, who have otherwise done everything properly.


I'm going to have to disagree with that. This team member did enter the game and did participate. This person had a material impact upon the game, unlike those mentioned in part (a) who never stepped onto the court during playing action. Attempting to treat both of them the same is totally inconsistent.

I'm not advocating anything. The NFHS made a decision several years ago to not penalize a team for a bookkeeping error if the listed, or not-listed, individual does not participate in the contest. The NFHS could have legitimately elected to do just the opposite and penalize the roster infraction no matter what, but I believe that out of a sense of fairness they decided that if those individuals don't participate then there isn't a need to penalize. Unfortunately, that principle wasn't carried over to this new ruling in part (b) by the current rules committee. I think that the committee which met in 2009 screwed up and published a poor ruling which allows a team to have member participate and perhaps substantially impact the game, but then not pay any price for it if the detection happens to come at a time when the individual is not in the game. That doesn't equate with the concept of basic fairness.
The aspect of participation is what is salient and should be the determining principle in deciding whether a penalty is necessary or not.

Such an error in the substitution procedure would be committed by the officiating crew, not the table personnel. Due to the primary nature of this mistake, as opposed to the secondary nature of a bookkeeping mistake, it seems that the committee believes that a different time frame for detection and penalization is appropriate. Hence, the rules specify that illegal substitutions must be detected prior to the ball becoming live in order to be penalized.
The situation to which you should be making your analogy is a team member with an illegal uniform participating and then departing prior to detection. The ruling for that USED TO BE that it was too late to penalize that player, but a few years ago the NFHS committee changed their position on this and now states that the head coach gets penalized for allowing this no matter when it is discovered. It seems to me that would be a more appropriate precedent in the rules.

Are you serious? You don't think that the record of the game should be accurate? I suggest a reading of 2-11 for you. That rule clearly states that the scorer shall record these things and, yes, it is understood that this record-keeping should be accurate.

I absolutely agree.

I'm not disagreeing with the RULE, which is clearly published in the RULES BOOK. I'm disagreeing with the very recent play ruling in the CASE BOOK. It is my opinion that the author erred in writing it. What does one do as an official when the text of the rule doesn't jive with the play ruling? Does one follow the actual text of the rule or should one go with the newly published interpretation? That's the problem.

These are the most important parts of your post. Since neither of us were sitting in the room and listening to the discussion, we don't know what the intent was, or if the intent was different than how the case play ended up being written. We do know, however, that the result is pretty clear - in this case, prior participation or not, we cannot change a number in the book and force a penalty on a team member, only a player.

I believe they wrote the case play to specifically address the confusion between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered", and the difference between "player" and "team member". The committee feels it is being consistent by making sure a number should be changed, and the penalty enforced, on players only, not team members. Whether you and I agree with the logic is immaterial, we still have to enforce it as written until it is changed. There are many instances where you or I may feel the rules aren't "fair enough", but we still have to abide by them. Correctable error limitations are one obvious area. No "do-overs" are another. This case is yet another. We can argue over some of the philosophies of specific rules and whether one area is consistent with another, but until we get elected to the committee and get in the room and convince them otherwise, we have to simply abide by what they have given us. :)


Of course I'm serious. I would never be any other way with you. ;) I would suggest you also read 2-11. Can you point out in there any specific wording that states that the correct number has to be associated with a particular player, other than when the roster is submitted? The purpose of the number is only to identify a player or team member, but it is still the name of the player that's important. The only duties of the scorekeeper I see are to keep track of points by FG's made, FT's made and missed, and a running score (kind of important to the outcome of the game), fouls on individual team members and coaches (to keep track of disqualifications), and TO's (to keep track of when a team has used their allotment). So when "Jones", #24, gets 4 fouls, then has to swap their jersey because of blood with "Smith", #53, who gets disqualified when "Jones" fouls again? Neither the number #24 or #53 jersey gets disqualified; it's "Jones" the team member that gets disqualified, no matter what number they're wearing at that moment, or what number is written in the book. The accuracy has to do with making sure the proper team member is disqualified, not with which number is physically written in the book.

If you feel it their duty to keep track of the correct jersey number because of 2-11-2, submission of roster or substitutions, then they failed to do their job correctly by not notifying us immediately, and the team member has already participated and left, then it's too late to penalize. Just like when it's an official's fault for allowing a sub on the floor illegally, once they're on the floor, it's too late to penalize.

I'm confused - what was the meaning of this? :confused:

From Wikipedia: [Sic] "is used when writing quoted material to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation or meaning in the quote has been reproduced verbatim from the original and is not a transcription error."

In other words, the word you wanted was "precedent," not "precedence."

It was a correct usage of "[sic]", but big, red text, Nevada? That's like giving a coach a technical foul, and telling the crowd, "Hey, everyone! I just T'd up the coach!"

I'm really confused as to why there is so much angst about this...if the number in the book has to be changed, it is a T. The only difference that is being discussed here is when it is discovered.

If it is a "player" - someone who is on the court at the time it is discovered - then WE direct the scorer to change the book and administer the T.

If it is a "team member" - someone not on the court - then the Coach has the choice of asking that the book be changed (which is a T) or not playing that kid tonight.

Why is this causing so much confusion?

The point being debated is whether a "team member" who was previously a "player" but is currently only a "team member" should be added to the book when it is realized.

Some say that a "team member" who previously was a "player" must be added to the book as soon as it is realized, even if they are currently on the bench. Others maintain that the "team member" need not be added unless they wish to reenter the game.

Actually, I knew the meaning of "[sic]", I just didn't know how it pertained to precedence, because I was pretty sure I spelled it correctly. It doesn't surprise me though that he picked up on the wrong usage. That's one of his strong points - focusing up on details. In many cases, that's a good thing, because fully knowing and understanding basketball rules requires an attention to detail. However, it's also one of his most annoying traits, in that he tends to sometimes focus on unnecessary details rather than the big picture. For example, notice I didn't point out:

The reason I didn't point it out hte difference between "whoever" and "whomever" was because it wasn't really a part of this semi-serious discussion. It can sometimes be fun to point out various mistakes other posters make, and I'm hoping he did it in that vein. (Lord knows I've done my share.) However, my impression is he did it to help bolster his arguments and thereby lowering my credibility in pointing out the many so-called flaws in my post. That's too bad, because it does distract from his overall rules knowledge.

And that would've been a good discussion to have, prior to the new case play coming out last season. However, 3.2.2 Sit C (b) pretty much spells it out for us.

But that's not much of a debate either...the only time we direct the scorer to change a number is if the kid is a "player". The Coach can request that we have the scorer change the book at any time for someone who is not on the court, but that is his/her choice. The rules seem pretty clear to me.

I'm glad you didn't point out the difference. "Whoever" was the subject of its clause, and thus correctly in the nominative case. "Whomever" would have been wrong. ;)

Hmm, that's not the way I learned it. "Whomever" should be the subject of a clause, while "whoever" is the subject of the verb.

Whoever and Whomever | Grammar Rules

Is that why the book wasn't called "Horton Hears A Whom"?

Yep, my mom used to read that book to me all the time. My fondest memories were when she would read it to me outside while camping; I could hear the owls off in the distance, "...whom...whom..."

It's just like the use of "who" and "whom." "Who" is used for the subject, and "whom" for the object.

example:

"Who gave the carrot to whom?"
answer:
"Whoever gave it to whomever."

At least that's how I learned it.