True/False

[donj]

True or False.

1. Team B players are wearing headbands which are actually bandannas that are rolled up and tied in back. Bandannas are rolled such that they are no wider than 2" and are of a single solid color and are the same for all teammates. They are legal.

False from rules book 3-5-3-5.

Please provide rules/case # if different.

2. During stoppage of play, several subs report for both teams. B2 goes to bench believing he/she was substitued for. Ball becomes live and team B only has four (4) players on court. Team B advancing ball up into frontcourt and Team B coach realizes B2 should be on the court. At coaches request, B2 sprints directly onto court without reporting or being beckened. Technical foul on B2.

True from case book 10.2.1 situation B.

Please provide rules/case # if different.

3. B3's shoelaces untied. Play will not be stopped to allow the laces to be tied. Officials may delay resumption of play on dead ball to allow B3 to tie laces.

True but don't have rules or case #'s to reference.

Thanks for the help.

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by donj
True or False.

1. Team B players are wearing headbands which are actually bandannas that are rolled up and tied in back. Bandannas are rolled such that they are no wider than 2" and are of a single solid color and are the same for all teammates. They are legal.

False from rules book 3-5-3-5.

Please provide rules/case # if different.

Yuck. Actually, rule 3-5 exception 2 says they're legal, but it states "headband." I guess you'd have to determine if this is in fact a "headband." If it's a JV level game (or higher), I'd have them removed. I've let lots of younger kids (mainly girls) play with what are in effect bandanas.

2. During stoppage of play, several subs report for both teams. B2 goes to bench believing he/she was substitued for. Ball becomes live and team B only has four (4) players on court. Team B advancing ball up into frontcourt and Team B coach realizes B2 should be on the court. At coaches request, B2 sprints directly onto court without reporting or being beckened. Technical foul on B2.

True from case book 10.2.1 situation B.

Please provide rules/case # if different.

Correct. Read case 10.3.4C

3. B3's shoelaces untied. Play will not be stopped to allow the laces to be tied. Officials may delay resumption of play on dead ball to allow B3 to tie laces.

True but don't have rules or case #'s to reference.

Thanks for the help.

Correct. The key word here is "may." Again, if this is a JV game or higher, I'm not going to blow my whistle for a kid to tie a shoe. Younger kids - yes, older kids - ought to know how to tie a shoe.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by donj
True or False.

3. B3's shoelaces untied. Play will not be stopped to allow the laces to be tied. Officials may delay resumption of play on dead ball to allow B3 to tie laces.

True but don't have rules or case #'s to reference.

Thanks for the help.

The correct answer to this question is FALSE.

Prior to the 1963-64 season, officials could stop the game or withold the ball from becoming live so that a player could tie his/her shoe. This changed with the 1963-64 season. The National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (NBCUSC), the predecessor to the NFHS and NCAA Men'/Women's Rules Committees, deleted a section in Rule 2 that had previously allowed officials to stop the game or withold the ball from becoming live so that a player could tie his/her shoe. The Rules Committee made the deletion and made note of the deletion through an Editorial Comment to the Rules. The Editorial Comment specifically stated the the section was deleted so as to not allow the officials from stopping the game or witholding the ball from play so that a player could tie his/her shoe.

I have just ordered my 2002-04 NFHS Basketball Handbook, so I can only direct you Part 1, Page 13, Year 1963 of the 2000-02 Edition of the Handbook for this rules reference.

When the NBCUSC morphed into the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees, in 1978-79 (if my memory is correct) all applicable Casebook rulings applied unless changed in the future. Therefore the 1963-64 rule change is still in effect for both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules.

[AK ref SE]

Mark- I am going to disagree with you on the answer being False. As stated by DANVRAPP The key word is MAY. That is what makes it a true statement. Just my humble Opinion

AK ref SE

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by AK ref SE
Mark- I am going to disagree with you on the answer being False. As stated by DANVRAPP The key word is MAY. That is what makes it a true statement. Just my humble Opinion

AK ref SE

With all due respect, it is your right to disagree, but the Editorial Comment was quite specific: the officials could NOT stop the game or keep the ball from becoming live to allow a player to tie his/her shoes. The Rules Committee's intent is that if a player wants the game to be stopped so that he/she may tie his/her shoes, his/her team must request a team timeout and the time request must be granted. There is nothing in the rules that preclude a player from tieing his/her shoes while the game is being played. The Rules Committees do not consider an untied shoe a safety issue. Each and every player should be able to tie his/her shoes in such a manner that they do not come untied during the game.

[ChuckElias]

Maybe the official is not supposed to withhold the ball for a player to tie his shoes, but if a player has an untied lace while I'm holding the ball, I might notice a wet spot on it and get a towel to dry it off.

Chuck

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Maybe the official is not supposed to withhold the ball for a player to tie his shoes, but if a player has an untied lace while I'm holding the ball, I might notice a wet spot on it and get a towel to dry it off.

Chuck

Rub those balls

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Maybe the official is not supposed to withhold the ball for a player to tie his shoes, but if a player has an untied lace while I'm holding the ball, I might notice a wet spot on it and get a towel to dry it off.

Chuck

Team B scores to cut the lead to two points with less that five seconds left in the game. B1 shoe is untied and you stop the game to dry floor so that B1 can tie his shoes.

Or, Team A is up by two with five seconds left in the game and A1 is on the line for a 1+1. Team B has no timeouts left in order to freeze A1. B1 shoe is untied and you stop the game to dry floor so that B1 can tie his shoes.

The Rules Committee in its Editorial Comment address such plays and wanted these types of delays eliminated.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Team B scores to cut the lead to two points with less that five seconds left in the game. B1 shoe is untied and you stop the game to dry floor so that B1 can tie his shoes.

Or, Team A is up by two with five seconds left in the game and A1 is on the line for a 1+1. Team B has no timeouts left in order to freeze A1. B1 shoe is untied and you stop the game to dry floor so that B1 can tie his shoes.

The Rules Committee in its Editorial Comment address such plays and wanted these types of delays eliminated.

You'll notice Chuck said "I might".

That aside, in the first case there's no reason to stop the game. 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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Team B scores to cut the lead to two points with less that five seconds left in the game. B1 shoe is untied and you stop the game to dry floor so that B1 can tie his shoes.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Speaking about the kid who thought he was substituted for and went to the bench without a replacement entering, thus leaving his team with only four--I would like to point out some specifics.
1. Although the casebook 10.3.4C states that the technical foul is "for returning during playing action" this is not really the correct reason. Nowhere in the rules is this action listed as illegal. Consider a player who dives off the court and saves a ball from going out of bounds. The player ends up in the fourth row of the stands and it takes him a few seconds to return to the floor. Meanwhile the play is still going on as the ball never became dead. He certainly may return during playing action without penalty!
The correct reason for the T in this situation is leaving the court for an unauthorized reason as stated in 10-3-4.
So we are penalizing his LEAVING, not his returning.
2. This T is charged to the player. He was not legally replaced and so is not bench personnel, thus it is not charged indirectly to the head coach as well. Please note: there is also not an indirect T on the coach if a sub fails to report or enters without being beckoned, nor is the coach penalized if the team has more than five participating. Why this is so, I can't justify. In fact, in the instance with 6 on the court the T is not even charged to a team member! It is just a team foul. This is important as the coach does not lose his coaching box for these infractions and we all know how much they hate that.
3. The movie Hoosiers is incorrect when Hackman benches his player and finishes the game with four. A team must play with 5 if they have 5 available. (not fouled out, injured, etc.)
4. When the official notices that a team only has four and should have 5 players, he should stop the game right then (unless the other team is scoring, why negate that?) and assess the T. Don't wait for the next dead ball.
5. This rule is there to stop trick plays. For example, a player runs out a side door, down the hall, and back in another door on the other side of the court to get open for a shot. I guess they don't want players hiding on the bench and then coming back in for a cheap layup either.
Under the rules there is no discretion for the officials here, but game management skills might dictate otherwise.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
4. When the official notices that a team only has four and should have 5 players, he should stop the game right then (unless the other team is scoring, why negate that?) and assess the T. Don't wait for the next dead ball.

I agree -- don't negate the scoring opportunity.

But, then why negate the following defensive opportunity, or the scoring opportunity after that, or ....

If A mistakenly goes to the bench, then s/he stays there until the next opportunity to substitute. If A needs to call a TO (or intentionally throw the ball out of bounds, or trabvel, or ...) to make that happen, so be it.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Rub those balls

Exactly!! As long as you're not delaying the game

[Edited by ChuckElias on Nov 7th, 2002 at 08:21 AM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Team B scores to cut the lead to two points with less that five seconds left in the game. B1 shoe is untied and you stop the game to dry floor so that B1 can tie his shoes.

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

[Nevadaref]

The reason that don't make the player wait 'til the next opp. to sub is that a team MUST have five players barring injury or DQ. 3-1-1
The rationale for not stopping the layup by Team A to penalize Team B for only having 4 is that you don't also want to penalize Team A when they have done nothing wrong. See Casebook play 10.4.1C
So in short if A has no immediate advantageous situation other than B only having 4 players, you stop the game right away and give the T.