This wasn't after a TO so no RPP for free throws.

That's one solution that was theorized yesterday.

Bob was joking.

10-3-6i, "to demonstrate resentment, disgust, or intimidation." While I think you could get him for taking off his jersey, I'm not getting him for leaving the court if it's obvious to everyone that he's quitting. For that matter, if that's obvious when he takes his jersey off (a big if), then as far as I'm concerned he's no longer on the team.

The rules weren't written with this scenario in mind, so you have to use common sense if it ever comes up. Just get a replacement player and move on. Sure, by rule, you can come up with at least 2, probably more, technical fouls to call; you could probably even justify sticking the coach with 10-5-5. But why?

Because we don't have a mechanism for allowing a free thrower to just quit in the rules and we shouldn't allow the team to benefit from his insolence.

+1

Doesn't someone typically quit out of resentment or disgust?

So you're only going to call a T if the quitting player is due to shoot free throws?

As Rut pointed out, the chance of the situation actually happening is so minimal the rules don't really address it. You don't need a mechanism; just let the sub shoot. If you feel so strongly that coach A might be trying to play a game, call the T. Or you could simply let coach B pick the shooter (stretching 2-3).

Personally, if I know from the start that the player is quitting, I'm just going to consider the player no longer eligible and let the sub shoot.

Let's change it slightly: A1 is due free throws. Coach calls timeout. After the timeout, coach informs you that A1 is suspended for something he said to the coach in the TO.

What do you do?

I don't think (opinion here) the rule was intended to address resentment towards the coach.

Look, there's rule support for calling it; I just don't think I'd apply it in this situation.

If they're doing it to benefit, they'll just fake an injury.

Either way, it goes in the report, and if it's found to be any sort of planned act, then there will be other repercussions.

No, I'm calling the T on any player, but I can see trying to get out of it with a non-shooter.

I disagree, the rules lay out how and when a player may be substituted, and this isn't an allowable situation.

But you can't know what the player's doing. You have no way of distinguishing a fit of pique that will be over in a minute from a kid who is hanging up his sneakers for all time. Since we can't know otherwise, we have to treat him as what the rules see him: a player who is required to shoot free throws.

I tell the coach he's welcome to suspend him once he's no longer a player, but in the mean time I need him to shoot free throws.

My experience in soccer colors my opinion here. I've seen all kinds of crazy things done in an attempt to avoid yellow cards from tying shoes to faking serious injuries (we aren't supposed to give cards to players who are on the ground injured, which causes players to think if they stay on the ground long enough they won't get a card). If you want off the court, fine. But you're going to have to do it legally or accept the consequences.

Really??? :eek:

Are you in the habit of allowing coaches to substitute for free throwers?

So if he tells you he is injured are you going to require a doctor's note or evaluation first too?

Peace

Not in the habit, no. But if a coach tells me he tossed a kid from the team for his behavior, I'm not undercutting the coach by forcing him to let the kid play. I'm not sure how I'd proceed, but I would not force the coach's hand when he's trying to send the right message to his team.

Why would I? The rule allows for the substitution in the case of injury, but it doesn't allow substitution in the case of the coach doesn't want him in the game anymore. I don't see why that's hard to grasp.


Right thing maybe but in the wrong way. Nothing is lost by the coach nailing his but to the bench at the next substitution opportunity and we don't break any rules doing it that way.