|
Sun Dec 29, 2002, 11:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Maybe the best way is to get both coaches together,go over the situation,and try and get an agreement with them that it's OK to go with four players in this specific case.What the official doesn't want to get into is a situation where he/she makes a ruling that the other coach will want to protest in some way after the game(yes,I know that the FED theoretically doesn't allow protests). 
|
|
Sun Dec 29, 2002, 12:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey, let's get them together and see if we can ignore the three second rule
 I, like Tim, would like to see an official ruling on this matter as it has come up in discussion before. My personal feeling is not to get involved, if the coach says she can't play, then my ruling is that there is no substitute available. I wouldn't allow her to sit out the third quarter and play the fourth, but if he wants to finish short-handed, fine. The penalty is very severe for a player getting too many quarters in and I am not going to be responsible for that. Suppose you make her play her fourth quarter in the JV game and she is sitting on the bench in the varsity game after playing her final quarter and they become shorthanded and some official makes her play...Use some common sense and don't be over-officious, stay clear from this mess, JMHO.
__________________
Church Basketball "The brawl that begins with a prayer"
|
|
Sun Dec 29, 2002, 12:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW, the coach didn't say, "she has played all her quarters?" did he? 
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Sun Dec 29, 2002, 02:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five."
The difficulty in this situation is that, IMHO, EITHER way she handled it would have been fine. Three problems that need to be looked at: 1. A team MUST begin the game with five players. It does not say that the team can NOT play with less, just that it must START the game with 5. Fairly clear on the surface, but a deeper look makes you wonder (see point 3) 2. Who is the arbitor of "substitute"? Should it be the official or the coach? Situation last year with my wife's team. Girl gets lippy with an official and then her. Sits her tail down for the rest of the game. Would an official MAKE her play if later in the game everyone was either injured or fouled out but 4? She was clearly NOT injured and had fouls to give, therefore "eligible" to play. What if a coach is punishing a player for something in practice and is making the player sit on the bench for the game to teach a lesson? Where does it say we as officials are arbitors of who MUST play. 3. Let's say in this situation that the player did not go in because the coach said she wasn't eligible. (For whatever reason) Now the game gets tighter and obviously having this player on the floor would make the difference. Horn sounds and ready to come in the game is our "ineligible" player. Do you let them in? My two cents, if the coach says the player is not going to play, for whatever reason, that is fine. They are the coach, I am not. BUT once the players status has been determined, that is the end. I would NOT let the player in (situation 3) to play because the coach told me they were not ready. (To REALLY throw a monkey wrench, what if the 5th player was injured and could not get back into the game right away)? I will side with those who say the coach should decide if they are going to play with 5 or not. BUT if they have a player who can play and does not, that is it for the rest of the game.
__________________
To Be Successful, One Must First Define What Success is.
|
|
Sun Dec 29, 2002, 04:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
If he doesn't want her to play, he has options. If he says she is injured, I don't inquire about the injury. Okay, that's the end of it. If he doesn't want to fib, she should either be in street clothes or not be on the bench.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 02:34am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one confused about this. What the situation comes down to is that this was a varsity player who was helping out the JV. He only had six JV girls, and one of them was sick -- although why she was dressed down and sittin on the bench, I still don't understand. So he pulled in a varsity junior to help out. I understand why he didn't want to play her, but I have a lot of other questions such as, why did he play her in the first two quarters, why not wait and see? Why not put in the "sick" player and let her just stand in the corner of the floor, thus making up five players, and saving the varsity player? Why did the other coach, who was also the administrator for the tournament, refuse to allow them to play with four? Especially since he was winning by quite a bit, and then very nearly lost? Okay, the player in question was very good, and I guess the opponent coach gained a distinct advantage by reducing the quarters in the varsity game that she could play. Was that unfair of him? He's not the person who originally pointed it out, but he jumped on the rule when he realized the situation. and incidentally, the administrator coach who insisted on following the rule did win the varsity game, and not by an awful lot. Hmmm.....
And then the thing about counting quarters, I know we are not responsible. Fine. Who is? What is the penalty? If a varsity game is in progress and then a coach says that a player on the other team is now playing in her sixth quarter, do we just shrug and say whatever? Do we not count but penalize when it's brought to our attention? Okay, almost none of these questions are really answerable. So what do I do next time?
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 08:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's the Advantage?
Forcing a player to play vs. playing with four? If coach A doesn't want to play a player for whatever reason, I would abide by his decision. Is he gaining an advantage by only playing 4? No. So what's the problem? I'm sure B coach isn't going to complain so I just don't see why you need to make trouble. Don't we have enough to worry about rather than go looking for problems? Just my personal opinion...
Mregor
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 09:20am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Coach determines the team on the floor
Remember Hoosiers where Gene Hackman sits out the kid that won't pass and plays with four players?
I agree with Mregor. I pride myself in being knowlegable in the rules, but there are times and situation where common sense must rule the day. If a coach doesn't want to play a player, I'm not forcing it for any reason. The only person/team put at a disadvantage in this situation is the team playing shorthanded. If it's OK for that coach, it's OK for me -- regardless of the level. And if there is a quarter rule involved (which we are not charged with enforcing in most jurisdictions), we don't want to try to dictate coach's decisions that tie the team up later. How about this situation? (1) Player has used up all eligibility (quarters) and is on the bench (with fouls remaining). Since the game officials aren't concerned with enforcing this type of rule, what's the difference between this and the original situation? Rich
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 09:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julie on the question about what to do if a coach brings to our attention that an opponent is in violation of the quarter rule... We need to tell him to refer that to the state association, I would not get involved in that in any way, shape, or form. That is between his school and the state association. The penalty in our state is forfeiture of the games that were won with the ineligible player.
__________________
Church Basketball "The brawl that begins with a prayer"
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 12:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Getting back to the original situation, I want to point out a couple of things. I WAS NOT looking for trouble. I wasn't sitting there at a time-out thinking, "Gee, I wonder if there's some infraction or detail that I'm ignoring, hmmm..." The table notified me, and coach A, who had plenty of subs, was pushing the issue. I would have let it go, if coach A didn't care. And, in fact, team B, with four players on the floor, would have gained an advantage, since they would have had a good varsity player available for another quarter of the varsity game, which team A won by a very slim margin.
The problem became an issue for me because coach A was "making trouble." I stood and considered for several seconds before I jumped to one side or the other of the fence. If we are not required to require five players, I say to coach A, "That's not my jurisdiction, you'll have to contact the State Association." If it's a rule, I say to coach B, "Five players required if they're available. 30 seconds." The only other possible course of action for me, I think, would have been to say to coach A, "Player 34 is injured and thus not available. If you think it contrary to the State Association rules that player 34 play in the varsity game after being injured in the JV game, you have to talk to the Association." And for the life of me, I still can't understand why 27, who was dressed down couldn't have just gone and stood on the corner of the floor and not actually participated, but been on the floor to make five players, and thus save 34 for the varsity game.
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 12:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay so I'm looking back over this trhead and going back through the rule book, case book, handbook, and (old) officials' manual, I'm finding only three references that could even remotely relate to this issue.
Rule 3-1-1-Note: A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitute to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five. Case 3.1.1 Situation: Ruling:...Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available. If no substitute is available, a team must continue with fewer than five players. Officials' Manual: page 20, item 118, Reminders:...It is a direct technical foul against a coach who fails to replace an injured or disqualified player in 30 seconds when a substitute is available. It looks to me as if the whole thing hinges on the word "available." What does it mean, and who interprets it? If it's up to the coach, then I was wrong to enforce it. But there's no way that player wasn't available. She was dressed, had played, hadn't left the game injured (and by the coach's description wasn't injured or sick), she was in the book, and sitting on the bench. Only the coach's desires for the varsity game made her unavailable. And remember, it's possible he would have won the varsity game if this player had not played, so there was an advantage issue. I wasn't going to call Howard, but now I think I will, just to set the issue to rest in my own mind.
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 01:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know what the NF rulebook says, but the NCAA rule is:
Rule 3-1 Art. 2. Each team may continue to play with fewer than five players when all other squad members are not eligible or able to play. (Emphasis added.) This seems to address many of the questions raised here. In the original case, one girl wasn't able to play because of sickness, and another wasn't able to play because of state rules. No problem. Maybe the NF will see this thread and revise the language in their Rule 3 to match the NCAA language.
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 01:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rule 3
ART. 1 . . . Each team consists of five players, one of whom is the captain. NOTE: A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five. When there is only one player participating for a team, the team shall forfeit the game, unless the referee believes that team has an opportunity to win the game. Definitions SECTION 34 PLAYERS/BENCH PERSONNEL/SUBSTITUTES/TEAM MEMBERS ART. 1 . . . A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time. ART. 2 . . . Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and statistician(s). ART. 3 . . . A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court. If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live. A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification. ART. 4 . . . A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player. Case Book NUMBER OF PLAYERS REQUIRED 3.1.1 SITUATION: After six players have been disqualified, Team A has only four who are eligible to continue in the game as players. In a gesture of fair play, the coach of Team B indicates a desire to withdraw a player so that each team will have four players on the court. Ruling: This is not permissible. Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available. If no substitute is available, a team must continue with fewer than five players. When only one player remains to participate, that team shall forfeit the game unless the referee believes this team still has an opportunity to win the game. I'm looking at the books and found the above. Definitions dont really define substitute very well. Rule 3 says if it has no substitutes, it must continue with less. My question...should we be troubling trouble here? If a coach decides to play shorthanded, who is disadvantaged? There have been numerous examples used here....quarter eligibility, injury, illness, punnishment etc where this could happen at the JV level. I seriously doubt it would happen at Varsity but you never know. My thoughts...why trouble trouble? If Team A has started 5 and wants to save a player for the varsity game by playing with 4 later, what disadvantage has this created for Team B? By rule, a team must start with 5. It can finish with less if it has no more subs. I ask you this....should we as officials decide for a team who is an "available" sub? The case book situation is different where a coach would sit a player already in the game to even up the sides and go 4 on 4. I'm leaning towards the "I got nothing" camp on this one especially at the JV level.
|
|
Mon Dec 30, 2002, 01:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am originally from Illinois, where we sometimes play two tournament games in a day and we don't have these quarters of play limits (Normal Community West played two games in the Peoria Richwoods touranament on Friday). Add to this that my own team that I coach regularly plays two games in a day, and we have played far more. Suffice to say I don't even like the idea of having to deal with these limits.
JV is a great way for a young varsity player to get some experience against her peers, to be a star. On varsity she may get to play, but be limited in role. Allowing younger players to be in both types of game gives them the varsity experience while also allowing them to develop aspects of their game that they may only be able to develop at the JV level. My AAU players star for their MS teams, and many have to be role players on my team. While they get a valuable experieince playing for me, some will find their MS time most valuable because it allows them to develop their own game. I am all for allowing kids to play as much as possible. Of course, the board that created this wacky limit does not see things the same way I do. The advantage concept should not be what you are thinking about. The rule was not created with the intent that the coach may have to play a kid in JV, thus imperiling his varsity won-loss record. It is not intended to be a factor in the outcome of varsity games (i.e., you roll the dice when you put a varsity player on your JV bench - it may mean you can't play her in the varsity game). It should only influence a varsity game when the coach makes the decision to play the kid extra JV quarters. What is good for the player? The player clearly benefits from being able to get some JV time along with her varsity time. But varsity is what really counts, and those games are almost always going to come after the JV games. It isn't the fault of the coach or some nefarious scheme of the coach to take advantage of a rule when the coach plays a kid for two quarters and sits her. That's what the rule is telling the coach he must do. It is a limit (outside the NFHS rules) that is placed on the coach that has created this situation, and he is just managing the playing time to allow a young varsity player to get a little JV time on the side. Neither the player nor the varsity team should have to pay a price for a simple decision to suit a player for a half of basketball in which nob0ody intends for her to play. I would agree that once the player is declared "ineligible" due to being out of quarters, you should note it in the book and the coach is not free to revisit this determination.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
