Wrong Number In Book ???

[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.

[bainsey]

Someone will have to provide the exact passage. I only have an older book handy (2008), and there's no 3.2.2C (b) in it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Someone will have to provide the exact passage. I only have an older book handy (2008), and there's no 3.2.2C (b) in it.

BillyMac already did in post #17 above.

And look at the words used in both 3.2.2B in '08, and 3.2.2C in '09 - they specifically mention the terms "players" and "team members". That may be why the committee added 3.2.2C, to address how they wanted the rule to differentiate between the two.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

BillyMac already did in post #17 above.

Indeed so. Hmmmm.

Okay, so if the case book says this rule only applies to "players," why would you have the phrase "team members" in the rule? Also, the fact that 3.2.2C was different in 2007-08 (there was no (b)) tells me this is a recent change or clarification.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Indeed so. Hmmmm.

Okay, so if the case book says this rule only applies to "players," why would you have the phrase "team members" in the rule? Also, the fact that 3.2.2C was different in 2007-08 (there was no (b)) tells me this is a recent change or clarification.

There is a difference between the two. 4-34-1 tells us a "player" is one of the 5 team members who are legally on the court at any given time, except intermission. 4-34-4 tells us a "team member" is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

[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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm confused - what was the meaning of this? ([sic])

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!"

[rockyroad]

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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!"

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:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that whoever [sic] authored it failed to appreciate the difference between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered."

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.