Sub for the shooter

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

What could you possibly tell a state association in this case? "I'm pretty sure the coach was lying, but I have no evidence, and I didn't look into it?"

I don't see that going anywhere.

What Berkut did may have been risky, but it worked. He smelled a rat, and had good instincts. Some may have checked with the player and asked how he got poked. Either way, he prevented scummy behavior from prevailing.

1. That's pretty much what I'd say, but rather than "I didn't look into it" it would be, "I know I had no authority to question him on the court, but I'm pretty sure he was lying."
2. If it goes anywhere is not my concern. If this coach is that duplicitous, it'll catch up with him in time. Even if it doesn't, still not my concern. My job is to follow the rules and (maybe) report suspicions to the state where appropriate.
3. What Berkut did could have gotten him sued, and righfully so, if the player was truly injured. "Sorry, coach, I don't think your player is injured. He has to shoot." Now imagine a very likely scenario with a rebound situation and that player has his injury aggravated.

Not only do you have no rule basis for doing this, you're just setting yourself up for heartache by even going down that road.

Also, by doing what he did, now what does he tell the state? "Yeah, I ignored the rules here and told the coach he couldn't pull his injured player." If he reports the coach, then he admits to the state that he risked the player's health. Over the top? Not really, because even if he judged the risk to be small, that's what he did.

Now, maybe if the coach had pressed the issue, he would have caved and allowed the sub.

Bottom line, though, Berkut got away with one here. And no matter how positive he was about it, it's a very dangerous road to condone the decision in a public forum with new officials who may not possess Berkut's enlightened wisdom and medical expertise.