Illegal Substitute?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes. I'd like to revisit this. Plus I love to quote myself. It makes me feel impotent.

Several have mentioned the idea of using points scored, or fouls committed, to "force" a name, or a number, being added to the scorebook. Why not use the scorekeeper's record of a substitute entering the game? Isn't that enough to charge a technical foul. What's so special about points, and fouls, and not substitutes? If points, and fouls, "trump" the, "No penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game" statement in the casebook play, then why not use a record of the player in question being a substitute that entered the game? If we can use any of the information that is supposed to be recored in the scorebook then when would the, "No penalty assessed", statement ever be used?

Man. This is like peeling away the layers of an onion. Anybody else feel like crying?

If it wasn't for the case play to the contrary, I'd say this would be good enough, along with definite knowledge from the official that the player had played (memories). But I'm not willing to apply the case play to situations that aren't specifically covered by it.

Now, the aroma from this horse is starting to bother my eyes, so I'm going to cease and desist.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

A competent scorekeeper at the table makes the rule really easy to interpret, and, or course, a lot less fun.

A competent scorekeeper makes mistakes just like compentent officials make mistakes.

Now if you are saying a "perfect" scorekeeper would make the case easy, that makes no sense. A perfect scorekeeper would mean there is no need for the case play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes. I'd like to re-re-re-re-re-revisit this. Plus I love to quote myself. It makes me feel impotent.

Fixed it for you.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The problem is is that the scorekeeper in the original post of this thread was a little to slow in informing the officials about the problem. That's what makes this so much fun.

I disagree. The official reported the foul and then granted a timeout. From the OP, it sounds like the scorer informed the official as soon as she could.

Further, there's nothing in the OP that prevents the T from being issued.

Now, really, haven't we beat this to death" Please, let it go.

Either way, I'm done.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's nothing in the OP that prevents the T from being issued.

Originally Posted by Toren

Player #15 commits a foul that my partner has a whistle on. He goes and reports the foul and then the coach asks for a timeout. My partner grants the full timeout. All players go to their respective benches. The score table calls my partner over and informs him that player #15 is not in the book. A technical.

BktBallRef: I agree with your interpretation 100%. Santa Referee will certainly fill your stocking with lots of Fox 40's, Reebok Zigs, and all the concession stand hot dogs that you can eat. Merry Christmas.

[tophat67]

After the ten minute time limit a team is charged with a maximum of one technical foul regardless of how many infractions of the following are committed: changing a designated starter, adding a name to the team member list, requiring the scorer to change a team member’s or player’s number in the scorebook, requiring a player to change to the number in the scorebook, and/or having identical numbers on team members and/or players. Each player must wear the number indicated in the scorebook, or change the official scorebook number to that the player is wearing. Any additional substitutes who become players and require the changing of the number indicated for them in the official scorebook will not result in a penalty, as the one maximum technical has already been charged to the team for that team’s administrative infraction

So what happens in this case. At the 5 minute mark of the 1st quarter, #10 who's not in the book enters the game. We are notified and access the technical. At the 2 minute mark of the 1st quarter, #35 now enters the game who is also not in the book. This implies that we do not access the technical since we already accessed a book technical when player #10 entered the game. Is that correct?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tophat67

So what happens in this case. At the 5 minute mark of the 1st quarter, #10 who's not in the book enters the game. We are notified and access the technical. At the 2 minute mark of the 1st quarter, #35 now enters the game who is also not in the book. This implies that we do not access the technical since we already accessed a book technical when player #10 entered the game. Is that correct?

It's clear in 10-2, Penalty.

[Terrapins Fan]

Nevadaref, I agree with you, but the rule is the rule. It should be changed in my opinion.

Good thread, we are always learning.