True/False

[DownTownTonyBrown]

An untied shoe could very easily be seen as a safety issue.

Common courtesy is to allow this player time to tie his shoe during a period of inactivity.... I wouldn't remove a scoring opportunity.... I would however, take my first opportunity to protect the player from having someone step on his lace and having him end up head-long into the floor.

Is this wrong or beyond my authority?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I guess I can you give the benefit of the doubt here, Mark. But TH is right, I never said that I would stop the game. By "while I'm holding the ball", I assumed that I would be holding it b/c of a dead ball, with the clock already stopped. But I didn't say that explicitly. Just to ease your mind, if I can, let me just say that I would NOT stop the clock for the sole purpose of allowing a player to tie his shoe. However, if the clock is already stopped at a non-critical time of the game, I would probably hold it for an extra 15 seconds so the player could tie his shoe.

Chuck

Chuck, I apologize, as I read your post I missed the word "might." When one gets old and senile like I am, one misses some words sometimes.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I love it when you try to twist things, Mark. You're getting to be as bad as Rut.

Chuck didn't say anything about stopping the game. The original post discussed resumption of play. no one said anything about stopping the clock to allow the player to tie his shoe. There's nothing wrong with allowing a player to tie his shoe prior to a throw-in.

You need to use a little common sense.

Read my original post again, I addressed the situation of not allowing the ball to become live while the player tied his/her shoe, that is a resumption of play situation.

Lets look at a play similar to my one just above in this posting. Lets change Team B score from a field goal to a free throw. Everybody knows that Team B will try to set up a press and that Team A will try to inbounds the ball quickly before Team B can set up its press defense. Are you going to not allow Team A from inbounding the ball so that B1 can tie his/her shoe, thus giving Team B time to set up its press defense. This is exactly what the Rules Committee did not want the officials to do when it changed the rules in 1963-64.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

In the second case there's no reason to NOT let B1 tie his shoes. And there's no reason to find a nonexistent
wet spot on the floor, or the ball. Just don't bounce the
ball to A1 until B1 is done. It falls under the heading of "common courtesy". IMO. [/B]

Its not a matter of common courtesy. The Rules Committee changed the rules so that Team B could not benefit from the actions of B1. If B1 wants to tie his/her shoes, that is his/her perogative, but A1 has the right to shoot his/her free throws in a timely manner and not be frozen by the official who is showing a common courtesy that the Rules Committee specifically prohibits.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
An untied shoe could very easily be seen as a safety issue.

Common courtesy is to allow this player time to tie his shoe during a period of inactivity.... I wouldn't remove a scoring opportunity.... I would however, take my first opportunity to protect the player from having someone step on his lace and having him end up head-long into the floor.

Is this wrong or beyond my authority?

A player for making sure his shoes are properly tied and must take care of an untied shoe without delaying or stopping the game. This is what the Rules Committee was saying when it made its change in the rules back in 1963-64. And one cannot compare it with glasses or contacts which the rules specifically addresses.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Its not a matter of common courtesy. The Rules Committee changed the rules so that Team B could not benefit from the actions of B1. If B1 wants to tie his/her shoes, that is his/her perogative, but A1 has the right to shoot his/her free throws in a timely manner and not be frozen by the official who is showing a common courtesy that the Rules Committee specifically prohibits. [/B]

The people who play in the games I ref take no more than 5
seconds or so to bend down & tie a shoe. If one of these
people looks at me & points to his shoe I will not refuse
him the 5 seconds. If before I bounce the ball I notice
someone bending down I'll wait. If I've already bounced
the ball and notice someone bending down I'll blow the
whistle & take the ball back. Common courtesy, but you're
one of the self named "rules gurus" around here, why don't
you post a reference that says "thou shall not delay the
game to let a player tie his shoe before administering a
free throw". As for this notion of "freezing", IMO this
is a mostly overblown notion put forth by sports announcers who need something wise to say during dead periods in the game.

[ChuckElias]

About 2 seasons ago, I did a 5th/6th grade game to help out a local church league. A buddy of mine assigns it and we work for free. Anyway, these kids could not keep their shoes tied. It seemed like every time we blew the whistle, somebody bent over to re-tie his shoes. I was getting very frustrated by the delays. So at halftime, my partner and I discussed it and we told both coaches that we were treating shoelaces the same as shirts not being tucked in. We were just going to send the kid to the bench and have him fix it there. We sent one kid off in the second half and didn't have another problem.

Chuck

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
About 2 seasons ago, I did a 5th/6th grade game to help out a local church league. A buddy of mine assigns it and we work for free. Anyway, these kids could not keep their shoes tied. It seemed like every time we blew the whistle, somebody bent over to re-tie his shoes. I was getting very frustrated by the delays. So at halftime, my partner and I discussed it and we told both coaches that we were treating shoelaces the same as shirts not being tucked in. We were just going to send the kid to the bench and have him fix it there. We sent one kid off in the second half and didn't have another problem.

Chuck

Chuck, great solution.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The people who play in the games I ref take no more than 5
seconds or so to bend down & tie a shoe. If one of these
people looks at me & points to his shoe I will not refuse
him the 5 seconds. If before I bounce the ball I notice
someone bending down I'll wait. If I've already bounced
the ball and notice someone bending down I'll blow the
whistle & take the ball back. Common courtesy, but you're
one of the self named "rules gurus" around here, why don't
you post a reference that says "thou shall not delay the
game to let a player tie his shoe before administering a
free throw". As for this notion of "freezing", IMO this
is a mostly overblown notion put forth by sports announcers who need something wise to say during dead periods in the game. [/B]

Go to my first post in this thread. I explained how the Rules Committee changed the rule starting with the 1963-64 season.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Go to my first post in this thread. I explained how the Rules Committee changed the rule starting with the 1963-64 season. [/B]

That's it, huh? Maybe I'll get me one of them handbooks
and look at it, but I tend to doubt it reads as you relate
it here. Got something a little more convincing?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

That's it, huh? Maybe I'll get me one of them handbooks
and look at it, but I tend to doubt it reads as you relate
it here. Got something a little more convincing? [/B][/QUOTE]


Read the Editorial Comments to the Rules for 1963-64. My intention is not to give you a flip answer, but you can read it in either the NFHS or NCAA copy of the 1963-64 Rules Book. The reference in the NFHS Basketball Handbook does not go into detail like the Editorial Comments did in 1963-64, plus I have had discussions with officials in both the USA and Canada who were officiating in 1963-64 and my comments are based upon both my reading the Editorial Comments as well as these discussions with officials who were officiating in 1963-64.

[AK ref SE]

Editorial comments and the game has changed since 1963-64. I look at editorial comments and POE as a yearly thing. In 1962 some team must have used the shoe tieing strategy to create an advantage....So the next year it became a Editorial comment. In my game I MAY allow a player to tie is shoe during a deadball situation. What I do will depend on the level I am calling. So my opinion to the original question. I am going to stick with TRUE for an answer. The official MAY allow a player to tie his/her shoe!

AK ref SE

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by AK ref SE
Editorial comments and the game has changed since 1963-64. I look at editorial comments and POE as a yearly thing. In 1962 some team must have used the shoe tieing strategy to create an advantage....So the next year it became a Editorial comment. In my game I MAY allow a player to tie is shoe during a deadball situation. What I do will depend on the level I am calling. So my opinion to the original question. I am going to stick with TRUE for an answer. The official MAY allow a player to tie his/her shoe!

AK ref SE

Prior to the 1963-64 season there was a section in Rule 2 that specifically allowed the officials to stop the game or withold the ball from being made live so that a player could tie his/her shoe. Starting with the 1963-64 season, the section allowing the officials to do this was deleted from the rules and the Rules Committee stated their reason for this deletion in its Editorial Comments (which I have written about previously). The Rules Committee deleted the section with the specific intent to take away the officials ability to stop the game or withold the ball from being made live so that a player could tie his/her shoe. Therefore an official cannot do what you propose because the rules prohibit it.

[AK ref SE]

Maybe it is the wording.....I am not going to stop a play. If the ball is dead and a player is tying his/her shoe, I am going to hold the ball for a couple extra seconds. I have seen this at all levels of play.... HS, College, Pro.
The next time a college game is on ESPN.....I bet some player will be tying his/her shoe and the official will wait. 3 seconds is in the rule book...We or I will say I as an official do not call that rule to the letter of the law. Just my opinion

AK ref SE

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Prior to the 1963-64 season there was a section in Rule 2 that specifically allowed the officials to stop the game or withold the ball from being made live so that a player could tie his/her shoe. Starting with the 1963-64 season, the section allowing the officials to do this was deleted from the rules and the Rules Committee stated their reason for this deletion in its Editorial Comments (which I have written about previously). The Rules Committee deleted the section with the specific intent to take away the officials ability to stop the game or withold the ball from being made live so that a player could tie his/her shoe. Therefore an official cannot do what you propose because the rules prohibit it.

Thanks for the reference Mark. Next time I work a game in 1963 I'll certainly keep this in mind. Now that it's
d@mn near 2003 what you suggest falls under the heading of
irritant. Bottom line: don't stop the clock to let someone
tie his shoe. Otherwise, as the road construction sign sez,
give 'em a break.