Wrong Number In Book ???

[bainsey]

The book lists team members (managers, assistant coaches, etc., notwithstanding). If a team member is listed with an incorrect number, it's a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The book lists team members (managers, assistant coaches, etc., notwithstanding). If a team member is listed with an incorrect number, it's a violation.

Not true, sir.

You need to consult 3.2.2 Sit B.

3.2.2 SITUATION B: Three minutes before the game starts, it is discovered: (a)
two Team B members have wrong numbers in the scorebook; or (b) two Team B
team members are wearing the same number. RULING: In (a), if either or both
team member’s number is changed in the scorebook, one technical foul is
charged to Team B. If there is no request for change or if neither becomes a
player, thus avoiding the change, there is no penalty. In (b), a technical foul is
charged to Team B upon discovery of the identical numbers. Only one team member
may wear a given number; the other must change to a number not already in
use before participating. (10-1-2)

[bainsey]

The situation you provide, Nevada, isn't comparable to the OP. The case book sitch took place prior to the game; the OP's sitch happened during the game, when 53 Black had already become a player, and even if he weren't a player at the time of discovery, he was still undeniably a team member.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The situation you provide, Nevada, isn't comparable to the OP. The case book sitch took place prior to the game; the OP's sitch happened during the game, when 53 Black had already become a player, and even if he weren't a player at the time of discovery, he was still undeniably a team member.

Yes, I agree that the two situations aren't the same. I was not attempting to equate them.

They are clearly different because in one instance the team member participated, while in the other he did not.

I posted this Case Book ruling solely to refute what you wrote in your prior post, which I quoted.

The point is that the submission of an incorrect roster does not always warrant a technical foul. The specific situation of the team member with the incorrect listing never participating is one example.

Perhaps we are advocating the same position without communicating clearly.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They are clearly different because in one instance the team member participated, while in the other he did not.

But, 3.2.2C (b) clearly states that someone who has already played, but not in the game at the time of discovery, is not penalized. And, it is consistent with 3.2.2B (a) in that those team members are not penalized if they never enter the game. So it appears the NFHS is consistent with saying the penalty is enforced on players, not team members, while you are advocating inconsistency by penalizing a team member in one instance, while not penalizing them in another, where the only difference is participation before discovery. Isn't there already precedence in the rules for allowing an illegal sub to become a legal player, and not penalized, if we don't discover it in time? Does it matter if they've already been in the game before or not?

There is no mention anywhere about a book having to be changed because stats aren't accurate. As far as the issue of keeping accurate stats for records or eligibility purposes, don't all those stats go towards a player's name, not number? What if that player wears 53 at the beginning of the season, loses weight, and wears 25 for the second half? Do they have different stats for each number they wear? What if the player rips their jersey and has to wear a different number in the 2nd quarter? I think you get my point - stats have no bearing on the number in the book because the stats go with the player's name.

Whether or not I agree with how the rule's written is not important. For the record, I would agree it makes sense to penalize a rules infraction when we discover it. There is a little bit of feeling that someone has "gotten away with something" if we don't get to penalize them on the "technicality" of us not catching it at the moment they're in the game. But we don't get that choice, we only get to follow the rules. And, for someone who is a stickler on enforcing the rules as written, it seems a little inconsistent that you would advocate a penalty solely on your disagreement with the rule.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And, it is consistent with 3.2.2B (a) in that those team members are not penalized if they never enter the game.

The key word there is "never." In the OP, while that team member was not a player at the time of discovery, he indeed entered the game.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The key word there is "never." In the OP, while that team member was not a player at the time of discovery, he indeed entered the game.

You're right, it is a key word...in your mind.

How about 3.2.2 C (b)? They were in the game, with the same result. A player's number should be changed, but a team member's number does not have to be changed until they enter the game, and it specifically doesn't matter if they've already been in the game or not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But, 3.2.2C (b) clearly states that someone who has already played, but not in the game at the time of discovery, is not penalized.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And, it is consistent with 3.2.2B (a) in that those team members are not penalized if they never enter the game.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So it appears the NFHS is consistent with saying the penalty is enforced on players, not team members, while you are advocating inconsistency by penalizing a team member in one instance, while not penalizing them in another, where the only difference is participation before discovery.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Isn't there already precedence [sic] in the rules for allowing an illegal sub to become a legal player, and not penalized, if we don't discover it in time? Does it matter if they've already been in the game before 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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

There is no mention anywhere about a book having to be changed because stats aren't accurate. As far as the issue of keeping accurate stats for records or eligibility purposes, don't all those stats go towards a player's name, not number? What if that player wears 53 at the beginning of the season, loses weight, and wears 25 for the second half? Do they have different stats for each number they wear? What if the player rips their jersey and has to wear a different number in the 2nd quarter? I think you get my point - stats have no bearing on the number in the book because the stats go with the player's name.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Whether or not I agree with how the rule's written is not important. For the record, I would agree it makes sense to penalize a rules infraction when we discover it. There is a little bit of feeling that someone has "gotten away with something" if we don't get to penalize them on the "technicality" of us not catching it at the moment they're in the game.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But we don't get that choice, we only get to follow the rules. And, for someone who is a stickler on enforcing the rules as written, it seems a little inconsistent that you would advocate a penalty solely on your disagreement with the rule.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that whoever authored it failed to appreciate the difference between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered." ... I think that the committee which met in 2009 screwed up ... It is my opinion that the author erred in writing it.

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Isn't there already precedence [sic] in the rules

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The book lists team members (managers, assistant coaches, etc., notwithstanding). If a team member is listed with an incorrect number, it's a violation.

Slightly incorrect. It's not a violation to have a teammember listed incorrectly. It's a violation to change the number after the 10 minute mark. The question at hand seems to be what exactly necessitates making the change. If he never plays, obviously you don't have to make the change.

Beyond that, I agree with Nevada.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Slightly incorrect. It's not a violation to have a teammember listed incorrectly. It's a violation to change the number after the 10 minute mark. The question at hand seems to be what exactly necessitates making the change. If he never plays, obviously you don't have to make the change.

Beyond that, I agree with Nevada.

To get into semantics even more, I believe that it actually is a violation of the rules to have a team member listed incorrectly on the roster which is submitted to the scorer before the game. However, this infraction is only penalized under certain circumstances. Requiring to scorer to make a change after the ten-minute mark prior to the game would be circumstances that warrant the infraction being penalized with a team technical foul.
The crux of this debate comes down to exactly what circumstances necessitate a change and thus trigger a penalty being imposed. The NFHS has written some conflicting guidelines on that.

Beyond that, I agree with Snaqwells.