Kid quits team during game.
 

Then throws his jersey at the coach and walks off the court. Whattya got?

T for removing the jersey. T for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Okay -- get a new kid in and resume the game.

Yep, play on. (2-3)

Not to derail this train...
 

...but my partner brought up something similar today. Not sure if this actually happened or not.

A1 is fouled in the act of shooting, and will shoot two. His coach is yelling at him for something, and the kid decides he's had enough. He mumbles something under his breath, and walks off the floor, visibly upset with the coach for yelling at him.

Obviously you'd have the T for leaving the floor, but assuming that's not his 5th foul, what next? He's not disqualified, and someone has to shoot the two free throws.

T for what?

Leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. Nobody called timeout, the game is ready to resume with the free throws.

That hasn't been a T in years.

See Bob's post, #2 in this thread, and in the rulebook, 10-3-6i. Looks like it may have been added in as of 2010-11

I had this exact situation in a game. During play, a kid on the bench got mad at the coach about playing time. Took his jersey off and walked across the scorers table towards the locker room. Coach got the indirect T.

I think I'd leave this one alone.

Which one?

My post was in reference to the OP but I probably would in your sitch also. I've coached kids like this before and sometimes there is no getting through to them.

I don't see it as fair to punish a team for an out of control player that has removed himself from the game and has taken care of the problem for us. Not in this situation anyways. JMO.

A few years ago Georgia High School had a fit about a kid taking off his jersey and sitting on the bench after he fouled out in the state championship game.

But what would happen next? The kid isn't injured or anything else. He shouldn't be off the floor.

Can't ignore the rules just because a kid is a problem

What does he do after he leaves the floor? If he leaves the gym and never comes back IE quits the team then I'm not doing anything. This goes back to the thread we had here a while back about about a team suspending a player during the game. If he refuses to play, that becomes a team issue IMO.

Spirit and intent of the rule needs to be considered as well. If the player leaves the floor over a spat with his coach, I'm giving his coach leeway in dealing with the player. If he's doing it to protest a call, then I'm going to T him up.

The issue of the free throws is still at hand. Have his sub shoot? I'm still leaning towards a T here regardless of the situation. The rules don't say we can avoid a T if the reason he's leaving the floor doesn't concern us.

But the intent of the rule is not about someone quitting the team. If the player leaves and never comes back all you are going to do is compound the issue. I do not think leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is a good call here. And if a player says he is leaving the floor and quitting the team, I think it is the common sense thing to do is move on. Now maybe the T comes already because you do not know if the player is quitting the team at the time, but I am certainly not going to T them for leaving.

Peace

This is what I would do. Our job is to enforce the intent of the rule. I see calling this as a T being insensitive to the situation at hand.

Are we, though?

I know we want to take the focus off ourselves, but if someone makes a scene by peeling off a uniform and storming out in anger, that's hard NOT to call. Who does that?

We don't make the call to be jerks. We make the call to prevent crap like this. What we don't call comes across as condoning.

Did you not read the entire post? I said that if he took off his jersey that might draw a T as it would not be clear why a player was doing that.

But the rest might not draw anything from me if it is clear the player is quitting the team.

In general I really do not worry about something that is likely never going to happen to any of us. It might have happened here, but I doubt most of us will ever have this dilemma honestly.

Peace

Our job is to enforce the rule. Knowing the intent helps, but in the end, we enforce the rule.

I don't see how you get out of this without a T. What you can't do is ignore it, even if the player wasn't the free thrower, because you have no guarantee that he isn't coming back.

I'm with Eastshire on this one. Again, there's no reason for him to be off the floor. Someone has to shoot the free throws, and if it's not A1, and if there's nothing but himself preventing him from being on the floor, something has to happen.

Of course you do -- the same as anytime a player isn't available to shoot his/her own FTs. Why is this part even an issue?

It's an issue because he isn't eligible to be subbed for (yet). He's not injured and he isn't disqualified (yet). Once he's racked up two Ts or five fouls, then his sub can come in and shoot the free throws.

If the kid isn't coming back, then are you going to wait around forever? Forfeit the game? Given that the kid really has quit, then he's DQd, at least by the time the game resumes.

Assuming you know what's going on, then the rules about the jersey and leaving the court aren't going to apply. If the disgust is with the officiating, then they do apply.

No, I'm not going to wait forever, I'm going to hit him with enough Ts to disqualify him and move on. What I can't do is just declare him disqualified or to no longer be a player because I have no rule support for doing so.

The rules don't say it's a technical to leave the court if upset with an official but not if upset with a coach. It's a technical for leaving for an unauthorized reason and not wanting to play any more isn't an authorized reason.

I don't understand why we're trying to bend over backwards to not penalize a team for clear violations of the rules.

What if after the first T the coach tells you the kid has been suspended from the team at that point and is not eligible to play? ;)

I do think that's a fair question as I was (and still am) a firm proponent of the if the coach says he isn't eligible he isn't eligible concept.

In this case, I tell him he's welcome to suspend the kid after he shoots his free throws or after he's disqualified. To me, there's a material difference between a coach telling me a member of bench personnel isn't eligible and telling me a player isn't eligible.

Resumption-of-play procedure, perhaps? Line 'em up (assuming no T has been called), for a free throw with nobody in the shooting position (since the eligible shooter has left the area), put the ball on the floor, count to 10, whistle the violation, move on.

With 5 on 4?

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.

Guy toss around 2-3 too easily sometimes, but this is truly an extraordinary circumstance. Kid takes off his jersey, throws it at the coach, and leaves.
Have a brief conversation with the coach.

"What just happened, coach?"

"The kid is a head case. He's done."

"Very well. His last act associated with the team was the removal of the jersey on the court. T for that. Now let's have a sub and we will proceed as if he never existed."

jmo

Go for it. I won't.

Yes and if they fake the injury that would be circumventing the rule too with the same result. The same thing applies here. We have a kid refusing to play because he is upset with coach or team. Sorry, that is you injecting yourself into something that is not covered by the rules and I cannot imagine the rules makers considering this as why they created the rule. The rule was put into place for disgust with us or opponents. I do not see why that is so hard to grasp for you either?

Peace

So the kid shoots his free throw and misses the last one. Play resumes and during the next possession, this kid knocks out one of his teammates with a sucker punch. What do you do then?

I know this is a bizarre scenario, but whatever this kid does in the game after the coach tells you he has suspended the kid from the team and YOU forced him to play - that's on you.

This isn't soccre where we're dealing with habitually deceptive behavior perpetuated on international television.

When coaches get in the habit of suspending players in the middle of games just as a poor shooter is about to shoot free throws, I'll rethink my position and I'm sure Smitty and Rut will as well.

Mean time, I'm not about to tell a coach which players are on his team.

I'm not bothering with the last one, but this situation is going to be rare enough that none of us will likely ever have it twice.

I disagree. He is injured. Mentally injured.

This is assuming the player isn't half way down the hallway and out of the gym. What do we do then? Have the school police officer bring him back in handcuffs and shoot the freethrows under threat of arrest?

This situation goes way outside what happens within the confines of the game and I believe should be dealt with outside the confines of the game.

What are you going to tell the opposing coach, then, when he puts up a stink about the kid leaving the floor?

That's, of course, assuming he knows the rule, or is at least familiar with it.

Fine by me, just tell me that he's injured. But a coach saying "No, I don't want to." Isn't good enough here.

Look, from the start I haven't said to keep him in the game; I said get him disqualified. Unfortunately, in basketball, there's no way to disqualify a player that isn't going to give free throws to the other team.

I've literally had this happen to me during a baseball game. In the middle of an inning the catcher left home plate chucked his helmet into the dugout and went outside the fence declaring he was done. So I obliged him and tossed him. He was in fact made at his coach (dad).

By all means, get rid of the kid, just do it by the rules.

I am going to assume that a head coach with any common sense will get over it. Not all coaches that know the rules expect us to be overly technical (just look at our uniform issues, many stories of coaches not taking the FTs). Actually I have seen many coaches that know a rule and insist it not be enforced.

Peace

That the intent of the rule is to show disgust with an official's call and this was not directed at the officials and then I'm done with the conversation.

So he has to lie to you when there is evidence the player clearly walked out?

Actually there is. That is why we have 2-3 in the first place. Nothing in the rule covers what happens if a player refuses to play the game.

So you ejected a would do or say nothing, but walked off the field? Not sure you have rules support if that is the case where a kid just walks off the field and never comes back. Of course if he does something to get ejected that is different. But we have a kid that leaving the game and court and we have an idea why. I can sleep well at night knowing I just got a sub and we moved on.

Peace

I understand "the intent of the rule" argument.

While this situation will probably never happen to any of us, it's certainly fostered some good discussion.

What I keep getting hung up on, though, is the resumption of play. We've theorized getting a sub, putting the ball down and starting to count, etc.

While this exact situation is not necessarily covered in the rules/cases, I'm still inclined to use the "leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason" reference to give a T. That way, we're at least following the rules to some extent.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I suppose what could follow, if the kid won't come back on the floor, is a DOG warning? I don't know, I'm just trying to come up with a logical way to continue the game.

You can't put the ball down / use the RPP (same this in this situation) because the freethrows are not following a timeout or intermission. Normally if a team refuses to provide a shooter in this case, it's a T to the player if he refuses.

Why do you think a T is needed here? This has gone so far outside the bounds of the game that I'm not sure a T actually solves anything.

Can't have a DOG warning either.

The most logical way to treat this IMO is to use 2-3, treat the player as gone and get a sub in. Give a T for removing the jersey or leaving the floor if you must but I'd be inclined not to.

And these discussions are wonderful. It gets us to think about what we would do and when it does happen we have some idea of what our thinking will be.

With all that being said, I cannot think of a single assignor I work for that would not be OK with me or any other official not calling a T for the "leaving the court" portion of the rule. As I said before, I can already realistically see a T for removing the jersey depending on when it took place. But to compound that with a T or any other very suspect penalty, I cannot see me using not using common sense. And I am also comfortable that my experience would be respected as well if I choose not to do so. And until the NF puts out a ruling or the IHSA puts out a ruling suggesting otherwise, I will not penalize such an action for a kid that is quitting the team even in a spectacular way.

Peace

Technically, I ejected him for unsporting behavior in the form of throwing equipment.

I just don't agree that we don't have rules covering a player refusing to play. We have a rule for not providing the free thrower. Use it.

Could you point me to the rule here so I can find it easier later?? Seems like this may be the most logical way to start the process.

In this situation, with any luck in our corner, the T would be the kid's 5th, and then he'd be disqualified, his sub would shoot, and away we go.

You just don't need all this. The rules weren't written to cover this situation, they were written to address sportsmanship issues. It's just not covered. Use 2-3, hell you can even call a T using 2-3 if you feel the need.

Just bring the sub in to shoot and play on.

Even in the dugout you are doing that? I know this is a different sport and I have not picked up a baseball rulebook in months, but I do not see any rules support if they do this outside of the field.

And I disagree with you that the rule applies to this situation at all. So we will just have to disagree on this.

Peace

Why? Coach is willing to provide one. There's no need to follow some legalistic rule gymnastics to get there when the rules weren't written for this situation.

The kid is no longer on the team, so use a shooter who is.

This is really, in the end, no different than a coach deciding to play with 4 because his 5th player is suspended.

We had a situation last weekend, H30 gets a T in the freshman game. Didn't play again and was taken out of the following JV game. If the coach had been down to 5 players, incluing 30, and he had told me at the time that #30 was suspended for getting the T, I would have allowed him to play with 4.

We don't decide who's on the team, the coach does.

8-1-2 clearly says, "Following a time-out or intermission....."

It never happens that cleanly. :)

Peace

Wow
 

There are sure some OOO's here.

T

Tee must've noticed the baseball reference. :D

+1 :d

I was wondering when someone was going to say this. :)

Peace

It's A Violation, Not A Technical Foul ???
 

9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Here's a technical foul reference that won't work:

10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

This will work:

10-3-5: A player shall not: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put inplay.
c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

So will this:

10-3-6: A player shall not:
h. Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.
i. Leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust or intimidation.

Pick your poison.

So the best answer is two technicals to the player if necessary for ejection, foul shots by the sub with the lanes cleared, then 4 free throws by the other team with the lanes cleared and then ball at mid court. Sound about right?

Two technicals are not necessary for ejection.

And ejection is not necessary for the situation.

Just charge the kid with a flagrant T which would cause an automatic ejection and you won't have to worry about whether he should be forced to shoot his free throws. :cool:

Not how I would handle it. One T max if you must but I don't even like a T here.

AAAAAAAAAAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddddddddddddd ...... I almost had this very situation happen in a game last night.

Rec league, 14U. Team A has 5 players total, Team B has 6.

A22 is a pretty decent player (well, relative to the other kids on the court). Yet he's constantly frustrated because he's missing shots. Several times he'd miss a layup, B would get the rebound, and A22 would just stand in the offensive zone and sulk without making any attempt to get back on defense.

Finally, in the 2nd half, he missed a layup, said (loud enough for me to hear as the L) "That's it, I'm done", and started walking off the court while B was transitioning to their basket. As soon as I see this, the alarm bells go off in my head and this thread immediately springs to mind. Which then puts me in the "am I gonna have to T up this kid?" mode.

Luckily (for me), B missed a quick layup attempt, A got the rebound, and A's coach called a timeout before the kid made it off the court. A's coach then spent the timeout convincing A22 to stay in the game, which he did until he fouled out 4 minutes later.