Wrong Number In Book ???
 

AAU game. Black 53 is fouled in the act of shooting. Five Black substitutes report to the table. Black 53 makes the first free throw. Four Black substitutes are beckoned onto the court, and four Black players leave the court. Black coach indicates that the remaining substitute at the table is for the free throw shooter. Black 53 makes the second free throw. I blow my whistle and beckon in the Black substitute at the table. Black 53 goes out of the game, and is replaced by his substitute. Before my partner hands the ball to White team for the inbound, the table calls me over and the White scorer, the home scorer, the official scorer, informs me that there is no Black 53 in the book. I call over the Black coach, he checks with his assistant coach, who admits that he incorrectly wrote the player's number in the book. White coach wants the technical foul called and the free throws.

Is it too late to penalize? Black 53 is no longer a player. He was legally substituted for. His substitute was legally beckoned onto the court and became a player. Black 53 is now bench personnel. The ball never become live. After the substitution my partner never handed the ball to White to inbound.

My own little administrative technical foul study sheet reads like this:

Penalized when they occur, after ten minute time limit. The infraction occurs when the scorer is advised to add to or change the scorebook. The foul must be charged when it occurs and enforced when the ball next becomes live. Once the ball has become live, it is too late to penalize. A maximum of one technical foul per team regardless of the number of infractions:

A team shall not require the scorer to change a team member, or player, number in the scorebook (with exception), after the ten minute time limit. Team technical foul. If there is no request for change, or if a team member does not become a player, thus avoiding the change, there is no penalty.

A team shall not require a player to change to a number in the scorebook after the ten minute time limit. Team technical foul. A maximum of one team technical foul is charged regardless of the number of players, and substitutes, not wearing the number indicated in the scorebook. Each player must wear the number indicated in the scorebook, or change the scorebook number to that which the player is wearing. Any additional substitutes who become players and require the changing of the number indicated for them in the scorebook will not result in a penalty as the one maximum technical has already been charged to the team for this administrative infraction. If there is no request for change, or if the team member does not become a player, thus avoiding the change, there is no penalty.

Please help.

This one gets penalized for changing the book. IMO, B53 scored points and the book now needs to be changed to reflect his correct number; issue the T.

I helped by pointing out that you may have been thinking the wrong colors?
I would say also that the fact that points were scored by 53 FORCE the book to be changed. IMO, if 53 had not scored or fouled or done anything to cause the scorebook to be changed then he is fine. You would just have to chalk it up to that player/coach/team 'getting away' with one. Unless/until the coach tries to put him back into the game, then you have a technical when he comes onto the court and is a 'legal' player (unless you want to call him an "illegal legal" player or a "legal illegal" player!) It seems akin to a team that sneaks 6 players onto the floor w/out the officials recognizing it, and the extra player hops off the floor before we catch them.

We've covered this so many times before, Billy, that you obviously know my response. The team committed an infraction. They must justly be penalized for it.

In this particular case, my sentiments match with Snaqs.
However, even if this team member had not scored, he still participated and the scorer is required to keep a record of all team members who start and those who enter the contest as substitutes. That record is the official scorebook. I'm sure that you've seen the boxes to check off when a team member plays in a particular quarter.
Therefore, I disagree with Judtech's position, but I must concede that someone on the NFHS rules committee feels as he does as shown by the recent NFHS interp.

I was actually wondering about the idea of it being related to him scoring. Frankly, even the fact that he made a shot attempt would, to me, require changing the score book. Further, the fact that he got playing time, which is tracked everywhere at the high school level for participation limitation reasons, means his number needs to be accurate and therefore changed in the book.

That was my thought process earlier, but I questioned it so I stopped after noting he had scored.

Nevada, there's an interp that says if he doesn't score, it can be ignored if we didn't catch it in time?

Frankly, if I was the coach, this is exactly the time I'd want this T charged. The other team is getting the ball anyway, so there's no loss of possession.

I agree, but more importantly your view is validated by the NFHS rules book per 2-11-1.

3.2.2 C was published last season. I strongly disagree with the ruling in part b. I believe that it cannot be substantiated by the text of the rules.

It had to be written by lawyers!! It is not what you KNOW it is what you can PROVE. How can you prove that 53 was in the game? If the player is not in the book, and had caused nothing in the book to be altered then how can you PROVE that he played? Did the official book fail to enter his name and cross off the quarter played? Yes. But that was not noticed until AFTER this player was OUT of the game. Therefore, if the player does not return to the game you can not PROVE that he was ever (officially) in the game because there would be no alteration to the official ledger recording the game. Sure every mom and pops video camera will show him playing, sure YOU know he played, the radio people know he played, even the running box score computer people know he played. However, none of those are offiical ledgers and recorders of the game, therefore, what they KNOW does not count towards what can be officially PROVED.
Is it semantics. Absolutely. But words means things. (Sort of like the difference between an eligible player and an available player, but I digress)
Fortunately in this case, that can of worms didn't have to be opened and can be returned to the shelf next to the SPAM Hash and sardines!

Wait a minute...
 

Rule 10-1-2c says it's a technical foul if you have to change "a team member's or player's number in the scorebook." It doesn't matter whether the person is on the floor or the bench, and the TF takes place when the error is discovered (provided that team didn't have one earlier).

So, where's the confusion?

If he is on the bench, then why do you have to change the book?

Because the book's listing is erroneous.

The book only lists eligible players. The player being on the bench has nothing to do with his/her name being in the book. It is when the player wants to go into the game that issue of having the name in the official book becomes an issue.

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

You have to change the book in order to properly record the made free throws.

Where did they record the free throws when they happened?

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)

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. :)

*3.2.2 situation c
 

*3.2.2 SITUATION C: Team A substitute No. 25 reports to the table for the first
time with approximately one minute remaining in the second quarter and is beckoned
onto the court. In (a), the ball is put in play by a throw-in from A1 to A2.
The horn sounds and the scorer informs the officials that No. 25 is not listed in
the scorebook. In (b), No. 25 plays the remainder of the second quarter. During
halftime intermission, the official scorer realizes No. 25 is not listed in the scorebook
and informs the officials when they return to the court before the start of
the third quarter. RULING: In (a), No. 25 is currently in the game and became a
player when he/she legally entered the court. Since his or her name and number
must now be entered into the scorebook, a technical foul is charged to Team A.
In (b), no penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game. If No. 25
attempts to enter the game in the second half, his or her name and number will
be added to the scorebook and a technical foul charged to Team A. (3-2-2b; 10-
1-2b)

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know the difference between the two, sir. Again, my question is, why would the rule even bother to use the phrase "team members," when the case book says it's only enforcable on players?

A situation that may help to answer your question: B34 reports to the table to enter the game at the next opportunity. You call a TC foul on White12. As you finish reporting and are about to beckon the substitute onto the floor, the official scorer waves you over to the table and informs you that B34 is not in the book. At this point, B'c Coach can call B34 back to the bench and choose to not play him/her that night, thus evading the T. Or, B's Coach can ask the scorer to change B34 to the correct number - B35. At which point the book is changed and the T is administered.

When did B34/35 become a player? And yet the T was still administered because the book was changed after the 10 minute limit.

Don't know sir, I wasn't in the room when they wrote it. ;)

Maybe the committee felt it was more important, in this case, to penalize bookkeeping items involving players, rather than penalizing the team for a sub that may never get in the game. This may also be the reason they've gone from penalizing each infraction within a category to simply one penalty within that category.

Rocky also gives a good example of why it's good to know the definitions, the difference between the two, and when one status ends and the other begins.

Where does the case book say "only players?"

The case book is used to give examples of a rule or a portion thereof. Even if all the cases deal with "only players," the fact that the term team members is a part of the rule tells us that this is also a possibility.

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.

I'm with byron on this one. "Whoever" is the subject of the verb "authored". In fact, "Whoever" is also the subject of the verb "failed".

Whomever brought this subject up should be shot. "Whomever brought this subject up" is the clause, and the clause is the subject of the verb. (Even though the word subject is used within the clause.)

I'm cleaning my shotgun now. Who (or is it whom?!?) wants the first shot?

Go to your link again, and read carefully.

You can shoot whoever is wrong. ("whoever" is the subject of the clause that serves as the object.)
or
You can shoot whomever you find to be wrong. ("whomever" is the object of the clause that serves as the object.)

Ok, I'm confused. Are you backing me up, or proving me wrong? In NV's statement, "...whoever authored it failed to appreciate the difference...", "whoever" is the object of the clause "whoever authored it", and thus should be "whomever", correct? The main verb of the sentence is "failed", while the clause is the subject.

Should we start an Annual Off-Topic English Thread?

Whoever is the subject, in that "whoever" is the person who did the action (both actions in this case.)
If "whoever" had been failed, as in, "you failed me, Bob," then "whomever" would have been an appropriate replacement for "me."

And no, my head hurts too bad for a Tuesday.

Now mine does too.

But this allows me to complete the argument in my favor, and always makes me feel better:

Shut up.

:D

Who the hell cares? :p

Peace

Well, as long as M&M feels better....

Whoever the hell cares?

Whomever the hell cares?

:D

SHUT UP!!!

To whomever that applies.

Who the hell are you? :)

Peace

The bell tolls for whomever, that's whom.

Still not sure why we're talking about interior mommy parts.

Hey! You started this!!

:D

Nobody Noticed, Nobody Complained ...
 

Thanks for everybody's input. I believe that the best citation was *3.2.2 SITUATION C. Since Black 53 was not a player, but was bench personnel, at the time the scorekeeper called our attention to the problem, then there should have been no technical foul charged. I guess that the fact that the ball hadn't become live yet had no impact on the infraction.

I guess we screwed up. We charged the Black team with a technical foul, the White player missed both free throws, and we gave the ball to the White team at the division line, opposite the table.

Next time, we'll get it right.

The Case Book states the number does not have to be changed if he doesn't play again. That's why rockyroad doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. Because some don't "like" this ruling, they choose to ignore it. :(

How would you handle it if the trainer did the same thing? Note the individual who is assessed the T and move on. You don't change the scorebook unless the coach requests it.

Yes, you did. But I'm sure you'll get it right next time. Just make sure you're the R, so Nevadaref can't ram his mythical beliefs down your throat. :)

The Basketball World Would Be Our Oyster ...
 

(Apologies to Billy Shakespeare.)

Wow. How about this for a "Supercrew"? BktBallRef, Nevadaref, and BillyMac? You two could teach me three person mechanics "on the fly". During timeouts, and intermissions, and after the game, we could debate interpretations. Let's make sure that we all bring our rulebooks, and casebooks. I'll bring cold adult beverages for after the game, or if any of you wish, for halftime.

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/f0d3ef5ebc2efca4

I'm officially starting my campaign to get the new ruling in 3.2.2 corrected. ;)

I'll sign the petition, but to whom will you be sending it? :D