Strange "T" play
 

In a high school game A1 gets a shot blocked but gets his rebound. As he goes up to shoot again he is fouled, but he cannot release the ball. Out of frustration, he slams the ball to the ground, causing it to bounce above the backboard. Technical foul. A1 has 2 free throws to be followed by team B's two shots for the "T." Before A1 can shoot, his coach punishes his "T" by sending him to the locker room. Can he do that? Can his sub shoot the free throws for him?

What if the "T" on A1 had been his 5th foul?

If the player is sent out by the coach for that reason, I will assume that player was injured.

In the case of the 5th foul, yes the legal Sub will shoot.

i dont think a coach can take that player out because he still has his 2 FT to shoot. If a player is not injured, he must shoot the FT. i give thumbs up to the coach for what hes trying to do but i wouldnt allow it until after the 2 shots from his T were shot, then a player can sub for him.

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.

<Font size = +6 Color = white><i> Ouch !</i> </font>

No way that the player can be removed from the game for a "mental" or fake injury. He needs to remain in to shoot the free throws.

Also, we should not allow a player to be sent off to the locker room unless accompanied by an adult. Especially in this situation where the player is angry/upset — unsupervised he might hurt himself by punching a locker or something equally stupid.

The officials didn't send him, the coach did. Kids go to the locker room alot. tape, towels, water, go potty, etc.

That kid is not our responsibility if the coach sends him. Is he?

If I saw the coach telling the player to leave and go to the locker room, I would not allow him to do so unless the kid was accompanied by an adult.

Technically, he may or may not be our responsibility, but I don't want my name on the lawsuit if the kid goes to the locker room and hurts himself.

In this situation it is almost besides the point, since the kid should remain in the game to shoot the free throws.

Of course, if the coach really wants him removed from the game all he has to do is get the player to do something deserving of a second technical :)

I have to agree with Big Joe and Mick. And, I can't believe I am arguing with the administrator.

Stan

To me, it's simple -- Rule 8-2.

The player in this situation is not injured, even by some strange, twisted definition of the word. There is no way, by rule, that he can be taken out by the coach.

Think about this -- what if this was at the end of a tied game? With maybe 5-10 second left? And what if this player was a 50% free-throw shooter and the coach subs in a 90% free-throw shooter?

Does that change your approach at all?

(BTW -- now I'm just a "member", so that you don't have to argue with the admin :))

I can't believe what I'm reading.

- If A1 is not injured he must shoot the FT's.

- How could you let an obviously emotional player (mentally injured?) go unescorted to the locker room. Forget about any lawsuit that might be coming your way. Think about the potential damage to school property, let alone himself, that might result.

Aaaaargh - the Two Faces of Brad !
 

Brad,
The premise (set above) was that the reason the coach made the kid go away was cuz of what he did and not his shooting percentage.

If the Coach came to me and calmly said, "Mick, I really don't want that player on the floor. He knows that his actions are not allowed on our athletic teams. I know this is outside the rules, but I can't allow him to shoot those throws... for any reason!", that'll work for me.

Of course, this will never happen U.P. here. :rolleyes:

First problem with your premise -- coaches don't know the rules, so he wouldn't know what was allowable :)

Secondly, it's <i>against</i> the rules.

Aw, it ain't that bad.

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.)

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

Oh sure... use the book.
What ever happened to artistic impression?

If the coach says he ain't eligible, is he eligible?

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 <i>by rule</i> 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. (<i>Yes, moo -- like a cow's opinion -- it doens't mean anything</i>)

Got milk?
 

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

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

Quote:

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. ;)

Quote:

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."

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 <b>into</b> the game?

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

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!"

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

One thing I<b> might</b> 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 :D

now who's melodramatic?

good catch!

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.

Of course it makes a difference.

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

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

Please provide <i>all</i> information next time you ask for a ruling :)

I'll jump in late
 

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?

Good call, Brad. :)

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...

were not psychologists big joe