Coach attends to fouled, injured shooter

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by mick

I agree, JR.
Take 'em out before she shoots.

Okay, so in the case that I had last summer, she refused to take them out. Wouldn't do it. So do I let the sub shoot? Can I say, sub can shoot, but you can't play any more? Someone on the other thread said, what about the case where the sub is the far better shooter?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

[/B]

Okay, so in the case that I had last summer, she refused to take them out. Wouldn't do it. So do I let the sub shoot? Can I say, sub can shoot, but you can't play any more? Someone on the other thread said, what about the case where the sub is the far better shooter? [/B][/QUOTE]Yup,the player with the earrings has to leave the game,and she can't come back in until she removes them.If she does remove them,she also has to wait for the next legal substitution opportunity after the clock has started to come back in.Her sub has to shoot the FT's,and also has to stay in the game.The fact that the sub may be a better FT shooter isn't really relevant in this case,because the sub is also gonna have to stay in the game and play until the the first legal substitution opportunity after the ball becomes alive and the clock starts,too.

Btw,I should also add that she CAN stay in the game and shoot the FT's if she does comply with your initial request to remove her earrings.That was the consensus on the old thread that you re-posted.If she won't comply,her butt goes on the pine.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 10th, 2003 at 11:30 AM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Casebook play 3.5.5SitA(c) is very explicit with regards to jewelry,and covers Juulie's sitch perfectly.

That's fine JR but whether we agree or not, this case DOES NOT fit Juulie's play perfectly. This case play is about a sub entering the game, not a player who is in the game who is improperly equipped and about to shot a FT.

As to who's right, I think it's fairly gray myself. Therefore, I'm not gonna sweat it. I don't think you delay the game to allow her to remove them but you seem to, so who knows?

Juulie, it doesn't matter who the better FT shooter is. That's not your concern. Don't let it enter your thinking.

[Edited by BktBallRef on May 10th, 2003 at 06:00 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

That's fine JR but whether we agree or not, this case DOES NOT fit Juulie's play perfectly. This case play is about a sub entering the game, not a player who is in the game who is improperly equipped and about to shot a FT.

I was referring to the statement used in this casebook play-"A6 simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed".It cites rule 3-5-6 as the reason why-"Jewelry shall NOT be worn".That's a pretty explicit,all-encompassing statement,too.Pre-game warmups are covered similarly in casebook play 3.5SitB.We do disagree then,because I think that there are no situations during your jurisdiction where you would allow any player,whether they are playing or warming up,to wear jewelry.I think that was the intent of the rule.

You see Dick Knox sometimes during the summer,don't you Tony?Why don't you run this one by him,and get his opinion?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I was referring to the statement used in this casebook play-"A6 simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed".It cites rule 3-5-6 as the reason why-"Jewelry shall NOT be worn".That's a pretty explicit,all-encompassing statement,too.Pre-game warmups are covered similarly in casebook play 3.5SitB.We do disagree then,because I think that there are no situations during your jurisdiction where you would allow any player,whether they are playing or warming up,to wear jewelry.I think that was the intent of the rule.

A6 is not a player, she's a sub. Therefore, she cannot enter the game until properly equipped. That's why the statement is made in the case book. It's not a statement designed to cover every situation. The case play doesn't address a player who is already in the game. She's already participated while being improperly equipped.

You see Dick Knox sometimes during the summer,don't you Tony? Why don't you run this one by him,and get his opinion?

No, I don't, at least not until the state football clinic in August. But I can tell you that he doesn't even want us using 3.4.15. It's more a preference with him, than it is "The rulebook says..."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

[/B]

But I can tell you that he doesn't even want us using 3.4.15. It's more a preference with him, than it is "The rulebook says..." [/B][/QUOTE]Don't blame him one bit.Just tell the player to tuck their shirt in or pull their pants up.As long as they comply,no biggie.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Her sub has to shoot the FT's,and also has to stay in the game.The fact that the sub may be a better FT shooter isn't really relevant in this case,because the sub is also gonna have to stay in the game and play until the the first legal substitution opportunity after the ball becomes alive and the clock starts,too.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 10th, 2003 at 11:30 AM]

JR,
While not saying anything about how you or Tony handle the player with the earrings, I must point out that what you have written about the sub is incorrect. That sub is under absolutely no obligation to remain in the game after shooting the free throws. Another sub may replace this player if the last free throw is successful. In NFHS the only restriction is that the player who was directed to leave must wait until the next substitution opportunity after the clock has properly started. There is no requirement in NFHS that the sub must play even one second before returning to the bench. Of course, you know this, but it slipped your mind.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

JR,
While not saying anything about how you or Tony handle the player with the earrings, I must point out that what you have written about the sub is incorrect. That sub is under absolutely no obligation to remain in the game after shooting the free throws. Another sub may replace this player if the last free throw is successful. In NFHS the only restriction is that the player who was directed to leave must wait until the next substitution opportunity after the clock has properly started. There is no requirement in NFHS that the sub must play even one second before returning to the bench. Of course, you know this, but it slipped your mind.

Thanks,Nevada. I wrote that too quickly and without thinking about it very well.I was trying to get across the point that the sub in this case has to shoot all of the remaining FT's,unlike the sub(s) in a technical foul situation.Good catch.

[NICK]

Fouled player has to take shots, she has earrings, she won't take them off and you take her off the court, I do not think that you should be allowing her sub to take the shots. Why not step into lane signal 2 shots and put ball on the free throw line, that way time will expire for shots to be taken (be it 5 or 10 second rule) you will have violations, then opposition gets the ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by NICK
Fouled player has to take shots, she has earrings, she won't take them off and you take her off the court, I do not think that you should be allowing her sub to take the shots. Why not step into lane signal 2 shots and put ball on the free throw line, that way time will expire for shots to be taken (be it 5 or 10 second rule) you will have violations, then opposition gets the ball.

Nick,there isn't anyhing in the ruleset we are using that would allow us to do what you propose.We have to go with the rules that govern this situation.If the player won't remove the earrings,we all agree that she will be going out of the game,and a sub will be allowed for her(if available).What we are arguing about is how quickly she has to go out,in this one particular situation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
What we are arguing about is how quickly she has to go out,in this one particular situation.

Arguing?

Who's arguing?

Nick, as I wrote earlier, it's not my concern who the better FT shooter is. That has no bearing in this at all.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Arguing?

Who's arguing?

Discussing? Disagreeing?

I wonder if we'll be discussing the same damn subject a year from now,again.Just like that sappy movie-"Same Time,Next Year".Woody and Tony get together once a year and discuss some stoopid case play,that they'll never use.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Just like that sappy movie-"Same Time,Next Year".Woody and Tony get together once a year and discuss some stoopid case play,that they'll never use.

Just don't let your wives know!

[PAULK1]

If the player refuses to take off the jewelry, they must be replaced...The rule clearly states they may not participate.
For those who think this might give one team an advantage of a better FT shooter they must remember it was the officials mistake that gave them the advantage. Either this player was allowed to start the game or was sub'd in with the jewelry
this may seem like a slight oversite but every time we make one
a team may gain an advantage that was never intended.

[mick]

Originally posted by PAULK1
For those who think this might give one team an advantage of a better FT shooter they must remember it was the officials mistake that gave them the advantage. Either this player was allowed to start the game or was sub'd in with the jewelry this may seem like a slight oversite but every time we make one
a team may gain an advantage that was never intended.

PAULK1,
I am willing to take the heat for the over-sight, but don't put all the weight on me. Both teams knew the rules, too.
The difference is I have to enforce them.

I do agree, that "brain cramps hurt more than bottles".
mick