Messy situation

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When it occurs. The technical occurs when you add the player to the book, not when the player entered the game.

It is penalized when the infraction occurs, which is when the player enters the game. The HC is asking the scorer to add his player to the book when the player enters the game.

Am I reading 10.1.2b completely wrong? It seems fairly specific. I had this play happen two years ago and called the technical and was corrected when I posted about it here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by zm1283

It is penalized when the infraction occurs, which is when the player enters the game. The HC is asking the scorer to add his player to the book when the player enters the game.

Am I reading 10.1.2b completely wrong? It seems fairly specific. I had this play happen two years ago and called the technical and was corrected when I posted about it here.

You are interpreting it wrong. The infraction is for entering the name into the book. The name is not yet in the book and wasn't on the submitted roster (even though in hindsight you said it was).

Originally Posted by zm1283

So what is the difference between "occurs" and "discovered" in 10-1-2? Is the case play 10.1.2b wrong?

In the case play the name was entered into the book and the ball became live before discovered by the officials.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zm1283

It is penalized when the infraction occurs, which is when the player enters the game. The HC is asking the scorer to add his player to the book when the player enters the game.

Am I reading 10.1.2b completely wrong? It seems fairly specific. I had this play happen two years ago and called the technical and was corrected when I posted about it here.

You must be reading it wrong. The answers you have been given are correct. See also 3.2.2C(a) -- it's nearly your exact play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by zm1283

It is penalized when the infraction occurs, which is when the player enters the game.

It has nothing to do with when the player enters the game. The player can play the whole game without penalty if no one notices and his name is never added.

[deecee]

ZM1283 -

The infraction IS the adding of the name. NOT entering the game. When the name IS ADDED to the book the infraction HAS OCCURED. Issue the T accordingly.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You must be reading it wrong. The answers you have been given are correct. See also 3.2.2C(a) -- it's nearly your exact play.

Looked at it.....thanks.

Originally Posted by just another ref

It has nothing to do with when the player enters the game. The player can play the whole game without penalty if no one notices and his name is never added.

Okay, I stand corrected.

Do you guys agree that we should have had a CE after it was discovered that V12 was on the roster submitted before the game?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Looked at it.....thanks.



Okay, I stand corrected.

Do you guys agree that we should have had a CE after it was discovered that V12 was on the roster submitted before the game?

I will agree that before issuing the T you should have done some legwork and request the roster that the visiting team submitted and check if it were a score keeper error. That would have avoided the whole situation to begin with.

Other than that wipe out the points for the free throws as they were un-merited. I can also argue using common sense that this T can be rescinded as this T has reprucussions. The most noticeable is that it is an indirect on the coach.

You can never go wrong going with the book but I will find anyone who would disagree with the T being rescinded (except of course the opposing coach).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Other than that wipe out the points for the free throws as they were un-merited. I can also argue using common sense that this T can be rescinded as this T has repercussions. The most noticeable is that it is an indirect on the coach.

Administrative T, team T, no indirect on the coach.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Administrative T, team T, no indirect on the coach.

yes my brain fart.

[zm1283]

So are these unmerited FTs or not? Can they be canceled?

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by deecee

Other than that wipe out the points for the free throws as they were un-merited. I can also argue using common sense that this T can be rescinded as this T has reprucussions. The most noticeable is that it is an indirect on the coach.

Are you sure about that? Technical fouls assessed under NFHS 10-1 are Team Technicals and not charged to the head coach directly or indirectly. (See also, p 70 of the 2010-11 rule book, Technical Foul Penalty summary.)

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Do you guys agree that we should have had a CE after it was discovered that V12 was on the roster submitted before the game?

No. Under what element would you correct it? It's not an unmerited free throw. You assessed a T therefore it was merited. Your T was maybe unmeritted, but that's not a correctable error. Whether or not V12 was on the roster should have been determined before you issued the T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mregor

no. Under what element would you correct it? It's not an unmerited free throw. You assessed a t therefore it was merited. Your t was maybe unmeritted, but that's not a correctable error. Whether or not v12 was on the roster should have been determined before you issued the t.

+1

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Okay, I stand corrected.

...have you told the ol' boy you officiated with this?