Illegal Substitute?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Nope. #15 committed a foul. My crew and I have definite knowledge that #15 committed a foul and we want that foul properly recorded in the book. Would do the same if #15 scored and the crew and/or scorer had definite knowledge that #15 scored a point, then #15 is going in the book and a T is being administered.

FWIW, I agree with this.

[Adam]

Just curious (and perhaps stirring the pot a bit) about something.
I agree with scrapper and BNR, but in those states where participation is counted towards a season maximum, doesn't a player need to be added to the book regardless of whether they commit a foul or score a point?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just curious (and perhaps stirring the pot a bit) about something.
I agree with scrapper and BNR, but in those states where participation is counted towards a season maximum, doesn't a player need to be added to the book regardless of whether they commit a foul or score a point?

IMO, only if the state has specifically said so (and, thus, said to ignore the case involved).

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

And you said, "What's this 'we' stuff?"

I wanted to. I got the rule book out after the game and tried showing him, but he made some excuse about "We just interpret it differently" or "You're reading too much into the rule"...just brushing it off so he wouldn't have to admit he was wrong. I just decided to leave well enough alone after that. He has been around for a long time and isn't going to change, especially when some guy in his 20s tells him he's wrong. What I wanted to do was email the assigner and ask him not to give me any more games with a guy who doesn't know the rules....I know better though. It was embarrassing when the coach whose team was shooting the technical FTs knew the rule about all eligible players on the roster being able to shoot. I didn't want to throw my partner under the bus, but I had to acknowledge that the coach was right. I think he knew that it wasn't my fault, so he didn't get upset about it.

On a side note, I have a real problem with officials who don't bother to study and know the rules of the sport they're officiating. After all, it is what you get paid to do. I admit that I don't know everything rule-wise, but I at least make an effort. Some guys try to act like it isn't "cool" to study rules and poke fun at guys like me who can answer most rules questions without the book. What's worse is when officials know rules but ignore them, like stories I have heard locally when officials have a blarge and ignore the rules and go with one call over the other instead of a double foul. Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by zm1283

... It was embarrassing when the coach whose team was shooting the technical FTs knew the rule about all eligible players on the roster being able to shoot. I didn't want to throw my partner under the bus, but I had to acknowledge that the coach was right. I think he knew that it wasn't my fault, so he didn't get upset about it.
...

This is a situation where I would tell my partner that I don't agree and he needs to explain his ruling to the coach and I would then take the ball over to administer the free throws.

Any further questions from the coach to me on the subject would be answered with an "I hear you coach".

I would not throw my partner under the bus but I would not allow myself to be used as a buffer either.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IMO, only if the state has specifically said so (and, thus, said to ignore the case involved).

Which case?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Which case?

Maybe it was an interp. NEvada has cited it in one of the recent threads on this issue.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe it was an interp. NEvada has cited it in one of the recent threads on this issue.

Found it.

Thanks, I'm not questioning the validity, but I would wonder how scoring is different than participating. Both are tracked by the statisticians, and the participation is arguably more important than the scoring.

We're also assuming the officials have definite knowledge that #15 participated.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just curious (and perhaps stirring the pot a bit) about something.
I agree with scrapper and BNR, but in those states where participation is counted towards a season maximum, doesn't a player need to be added to the book regardless of whether they commit a foul or score a point?

They would but it takes definite knowledge of them being in the game to cause them to be added. This knowledge comes from them currently being one of the five players or having a foul assessed to them. (I personally don't think scoring is sufficient as the scoring player is formally reported to the table.)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

They would but it takes definite knowledge of them being in the game to cause them to be added. This knowledge comes from them currently being one of the five players or having a foul assessed to them. (I personally don't think scoring is sufficient as the scoring player is formally reported to the table.)

Where does this assessment of things come from? In other situations, definite knowledge is just that. I saw it. I know it happened. The clock stopped late, etc. Number 15 was in the game. I saw him. I see sweat on him now. That is definite knowledge.