Strange

[Brad]

The coach really has nothing to do with it.

I can understand why we want to allow the coach to take the player out of the game, but in this case what the coach is doing affects both teams, since the player that he wants to remove has just been awarded two free throws.

If a player is acting up and a coach benches him after a violation is called, for example, that is none of our business. However, in this case, the coach will be subsituting a player to shoot the free throws when by rule the player that he is taking out is the one that should be attempting them.

If I were the opposing coach I would make an issue out of it -- no doubt.

Going by the rules in this case makes sense and keeps you out of hot water. Just tell the coach that the player can be removed at the first opportunity after he shoots the free throws.

If they really want to make an issue out of it you could just give the player his second technical for refusing to attempt the free throws, at which point he would be ejected, making the whole thing a moo point. (Yes, moo -- like a cow's opinion -- it doens't mean anything)

[mick]

Originally posted by Brad

If they really want to make an issue out of it you could just give the player his second technical for refusing to attempt the free throws, at which point he would be ejected, making the whole thing a moo point. (Yes, moo -- like a cow's opinion -- it doens't mean anything)

The pond yer fishin' in is about as deep as mine.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

Aw, it ain't that bad.

I know, I just had a passing urge for the melodramatic

Was he unescorted? I missed that somewhere. No, I think we absolutely need someone with him. (That's a great place for most Assistant coaches, just sit in there an wait for a player to enter.)

hmmm, looking back it seems like many of us took "sent off" to mean "sent off unescorted" to the locker room. And just like in real life once a story has "evolved" it's own truth we just gotta accept it.

What if the Coach came to you and said, "That kid has just been suspended from the team, ...by me and my Athletic Director."

"Good idea coach, the suspension will start as soon as his FT's & any subsequent live ball activity is completed."

[Brad]

The pond yer fishin' in is about as deep as mine.

Maybe

I'm just trying to give you another out.

I think that I just see the problems that we could create for ourselves by allowing this coach to take his player out of the game at this point, when the player should be attempting free throws.

What if the coach later decides to put the player back into the game?

What if the opposing coach later wants to pull one of his players? "You let him do it, why can't I?"

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

"Good idea coach, the suspension will start as soon as his FT's & any subsequent live ball activity is completed."
[/B]

Oh, sure, so the kid goes to the line and a visiting fan throws and hits the kid with a bottle.

Coach: "It's the ref's fault, I suspended that kid, ... cuz I knew that would happen!"

[mick]

Originally posted by Brad

Maybe

I'm just trying to give you another out.

I think that I just see the problems that we could create for ourselves by allowing this coach to take his player out of the game at this point, when the player should be attempting free throws.

What if the coach later decides to put the player back into the game?

What if the opposing coach later wants to pull one of his players? "You let him do it, why can't I?"

YU.P. "What if" is right.
...A tangled web....
Fun game, yo?

[SamNVa]

One thing I might point out is that since the kid was hit with a technical for slamming the ball, you don't have to worry about any action after his 2nd free throw, ... but I won't

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

Oh, sure, so the kid goes to the line and a visiting fan throws and hits the kid with a bottle.

Coach: "It's the ref's fault, I suspended that kid, ... cuz I knew that would happen!" [/B]

now who's melodramatic?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by SamNVa
One thing I might point out is that since the kid was hit with a technical for slamming the ball, you don't have to worry about any action after his 2nd free throw, ... but I won't

good catch!

[bkiledad]

Now, does it make any difference in any of your responses if I add the fact that it was a freshmen boys "B" game where my partner did not show up for either game?

A coach from another level did follow the kid into the locker room. I didn't make the kid come back to shoot because I was glad to have him off the court. In the "A" game I had to give a player a "T" for arguing a call and his coach immediately took him out. A little later I had two players in each other's faces about to go to blows so they got the old double "T" and were immediately removed by their coaches. I think this coach was just following the example set by those in the previous game and letting the kid know that the behavior was inappropriate.

[Brad]

Now, does it make any difference in any of your responses if I add the fact that it was a freshmen boys "B" game where my partner did not show up for either game?

Of course it makes a difference.

In this case, I would cite the one-person mechanics rule which reads, Do whatever you have to do to get yourself out of there in one piece.

As we all know, this rule supercedes any other in the book.

Please provide all information next time you ask for a ruling

[Hawks Coach]

I think you have to let the kid shoot the FTs, explain that to the coach, and stay out of anything else. The ref shall not send a player to the locker room unescorted. However, if the coach says go, it is now between the coach and player (and game managment if this is the visiting team). If this is the home team, these kids go all over the school without an escort - if a responsible individual from the school allows this to occur, the ref has no business involving himself in this issue.

Try it another way - the player is escorted to the locker room, and the escort returns immediately and sits in the stands. Are you sending him back? Where does this line of reasoning logically take you?

[mick]

Originally posted by Brad

In this case, I would cite the one-person mechanics rule which reads, Do whatever you have to do to get yourself out of there in one piece.

As we all know, this rule supercedes any other in the book.

Please provide all information next time you ask for a ruling

Good call, Brad.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Brad
If a player is acting up and a coach benches him after a violation is called, for example, that is none of our business. However, in this case, the coach will be subsituting a player to shoot the free throws when by rule the player that he is taking out is the one that should be attempting them.

If you think about it, even if the coach is not trying to gain an advantage...what happens once he's sent the kid to the locker room? He's got to send in a replacement. At that moment, despite his up-til-now pure motives, he isn't likely to send in his WORST free throw shooter...

[Josh Ovens]

Originally posted by BigJoe
Josh, I know where you are coming from. But step back a minute and examine this situation. If the coach feels this strongly about sending his player to the showers, and isn't trying to put in a "ringer" to shoot the free throws, I think Mick has a point. Does an injury have to be only physical? If he gets that upset, maybe his "mental" injury caused the temper outburst and has saved you from something much worse later in the game. Just something to think about.
I hate to agree with Mick too often, though.

were not psychologists big joe