Ejection ...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Welpe

We are so close to that Southern California reference I mentioned in another thread, I can almost taste it.

This particular poster is the pride of CO, not CA. The resemblance sureashell is there though, isn't it? Uncanny as hell.

[tref]

Actually it will be TX in a couple of months...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If I'm misreading the above, I apologize...but.....

It doesn't matter at all if the statement was obviously directed at the head coach. What matters is that the rules and mechanics state that you go to the head coach and inform him that his player just committed his fifth foul. If you don't do that, you haven't fulfilled your responsibility; you've completely ignored it. You sureashell are NOT fulfilling your responsibility in any way, shape or form by asking a question at the scorers table. The head coach is not supposed to be anywhere near the scorers table. That's a rule also.

You're right, and tref's statement, as I read it, is directed to the coach. If I'm reading it wrong, then I agree with you. However, the point is there's no prescribed wording for notifying the coach, nor is there anything that prevents us from asking the question, "is #5 the sub for #11" prior to stating, "that's 5 on #11."

I guess it seemed obvious to me that tref was simply proposing alternate wording to the notification rather than suggesting we speak to the basketball gods and assume coach hears us.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

That's one of the stupidest comments I have read on this board in a long time. So you are a "people person" but can't figure out that switching places is a valid way to calm a volatile situation? That's not much of a "people person". That's more of an "it's all about me person".

And the "Is the sub for 11, he has 5" statement is neither the proper way to handle the situation nor a very good way to communicate. A possible scenario:

tref: "Is the sub for #11, he has 5?"

coach: "What? That kid hasn't even been in the game yet?"

tref: "No, no, no, Coach. Number 11 has 5 fouls and I was wondering if the sub was coming in for number 11."

Coach: "Why didn't you just say that number 11 had five fouls! That's pretty much par for the course with the way you have been calling this game tonight."

Great game management there.

I think he was being sarcastic and referencing a prior thread.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're right, and tref's statement, as I read it, is directed to the coach. If I'm reading it wrong, then I agree with you. However, the point is there's no prescribed wording for notifying the coach, nor is there anything that prevents us from asking the question, "is #5 the sub for #11" prior to stating, "that's 5 on #11."

I guess it seemed obvious to me that tref was simply proposing alternate wording to the notification rather than suggesting we speak to the basketball gods and assume coach hears us.

This has been a silly arugment. tref offered a perfectly valid way of dealing with the situation.....not just tell the coach #11 has 5 but wrap it up into asking if the already present sub is for the player who has just fouled out.

In fact, it does something beneficial vs. just telling the coach "#11 has 5 fouls". It moves the topic directly to getting the sub into the game reducing the chance the coach will say something. It has shifted that information into a secondary part of the exchange with the status of the sub being the focus. Sure, the coach can still choose to say/do something that will draw a penalty...can't stop them all. But, it is a lot less likely than telling the coach the player has fouled out and waiting for him to tell you the sub that is already at the table is the replacement.

[JugglingReferee]

tref's method is killing two birds with one sentence.

A perfectly acceptable way to handle the situation. In fact, it should be encouraged because if that sub is for the fouled-out player, then the game gets moving quicker. if the sub isn't for the fouled-out player, he might "become" the sub for the fouled-out player because the idea is now in the coach's mind.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

. However, the point is there's no prescribed wording for notifying the coach, nor is there anything that prevents us from asking the question, "is #5 the sub for #11" prior to stating, "that's 5 on #11."

Case book play 2.8.4 lays out the procedure and that's exactly what we train our officials to follow. Asking extraneous questions at the table is completely irrelevant to the recommended prodecure though. Asking a sub at the table whether he's subbing in for a disqualified player is NOT notifying a coach under any stetch of the imagination.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Case book play 2.8.4 lays out the procedure and that's exactly what we train our officials to follow. Asking extraneous questions at the table is completely irrelevant to the recommended prodecure though. Asking a sub at the table whether he's subbing in for a disqualified player is NOT notifying a coach under any stetch of the imagination.

If I'm right, tref's question was directed to the head coach.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

. tref offered a perfectly valid way of dealing with the situation.....not just tell the coach #11 has 5 but wrap it up into asking if the already present sub is for the player who has just fouled out.

Tref said that you don't have to tell the coach that his player fouled out. His statement was "there is no reason to tell the coach".. The rules say otherwise.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If I'm right, tref's question was directed to the head coach.

Howinthehell can you be right when tref stated very emphatically that there is no reason to let the coach know that his player just committed his fifth foul? Why would he direct it the head coach if he felt that their was no reason for the head coach to know that? Those were his exact words; i've cited 'em verbatim enough so far in this thread. He also said that he asked the question AT the table. Coachs aren't allowed to be at the table, by rule. Howinthehell can you direct a question to someone who by rule isn't supposed to be anywhere near you?

RIF!

Unfortunately, the rules state the we have to inform the coach when one of his players fouls out. That's NFHS rule 2-8-4. There is nowayinhell that asking anyone anything at the scorers table changes that responsibility.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Howinthehell can you be right when tref stated very emphatically that there is no reason to let the coach know that his player just committed his fifth foul? Why would he direct it the head coach if he felt that their was no reason for the head coach to know that? Those were his exact words; i've cited 'em verbatim enough so far in this thread. He also said that he asked the question AT the table. Coachs aren't allowed to be at the table, by rule. Howinthehell can you direct a question to someone who by rule isn't supposed to be anywhere near you?

RIF!

Unfortunately, the rules state the we have to inform the coach when one of his players fouls out. That's NFHS rule 2-8-4. There is nowayinhell that asking anyone anything at the scorers table changes that responsibility.

Just to be clear, please tell me which post number where "tref stated very emphatically that there is no reason to let the coach know that his player just committed his fifth foul".

Thanks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

tref's method is killing two birds with one sentence.

A perfectly acceptable way to handle the situation. In fact, it should be encouraged because if that sub is for the fouled-out player, then the game gets moving quicker. if the sub isn't for the fouled-out player, he might "become" the sub for the fouled-out player because the idea is now in the coach's mind.

Cool. Ignore a very plainly written rule and case paly. If you think that's acceptable, Jugs, I'd be checking that out with your local rules interpreter before adopting that procedure. You're into making up your own rules now imo.

Tref's method does NOT include notifying the head coach that one of his players has just fouled out. That bird is live! He's stated that very emphatically and I've sureashell cited that statement enough. That is NOT acceptable. The rules state that we do have to notify the head coach.

The case book play that I cited lays out the procedure to be used very simply and easily. Why do some people think that they can ignore that and make up their own procedure? A procedure that goes completely against a written rule?

I'm just repeating myself now. I'm done.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

1. I report the foul to the table

2. They inform me that its the 5th.

3. Im AT the table & see a sub there... is no reason to let the coach know its the 5th. Thats why the sub is there!! Asking if the sub is for the player w/ 5 makes more sense to me.

For the umpteeth freaking time, Juggs......see above.

He's AT the table, nowhere near the coach. He's asking the question TO the table. The rules say that we HAVE to let the coach know that his player just committed their fifth foul. At no time did tref go down and do that. I have no idea howintheheck either how anyone can assume that the coach even heard the question when the coach isn't supposed to be anywhere near the table, by rule.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

For the umpteeth freaking time, Juggs......see above.

He's AT the table, nowhere near the coach. He's asking the question TO the table. The rules say that we HAVE to let the coach know that his player just committed their fifth foul. At no time did tref go down and do that. I have no idea howintheheck either how anyone can assume that the coach even heard the question when the coach isn't supposed to be anywhere near the table, by rule.

Blow things out of proportion much?

I had trouble searching through all of the replies, which is why I tasked you to find the quote tref said. I know you spend a lot of time on here, so you may as well spend more, rather than me.

I did read somewhere that said voicing "Is so-and-so a sub for #x, who has 5" and thought it was tref. If it wasn't, I apologize.

I know that you know that I follow mechanics properly. As for my local rules interp, you're just trying to paint me with a colour that you know damn well isn't true, so you should just stop that sort of behavior.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I know that you know that I follow mechanics properly. As for my local rules interp, you're just trying to paint me with a colour that you know damn well isn't true, so you should just stop that sort of behavior.

Yes, and I also know that you know the rules better than the average bear also. That's why I was frankly quite amazed when you seemed to advocate not following the prescribed rule and mechanic. That's certainly out of character for you.

At no time did I intend to demean you or your rules knowledge in any way. If you thought so, then I apologize to you for giving that impression.