|
Quote:
To answer your question, though, I'm going with a toss from the gym. While it sure "feels" like a T, you can't T up someone who's not in the game, and an ejection sends a bigger message anyway, without really penalizing the team that he's not on. Besides, a student that gets tossed from his own gym will have to answer to his own authorities the next day. It also prevents a probable next-day beating from the varsity players. If I ever have to use 2-8-1, it'll be to prevent things from getting out of hand. Being called a penile helmet once doesn't quite qualify, IMO. |
Quote:
In my game, he's getting the T, and if we have to consider him an assistant coach to do it, so be it. Same with the pregame dunk, IMO. |
Quote:
Where do you get the authority to toss anyone from the gym? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The point is first that you really don't. If the situation arises that a person needs to be removed, hopefully game management will back you.
"I want that guy removed." "I'll take care of it. I'll talk to him." Then what? Second, and applicable here, hopefully we don't ask for removal unless a person's actions are waaaaay out of line. A dunk in warmups does not meet this description, particularly if that dunker was out there with the blessing of the coach. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I guess we can't personally toss them but we can and do hold the game until game management has done so...which is effectively the same thing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There are exceptions to everything. |
Quote:
:p |
Quote:
|
Agree To Disagree ...
Quote:
Good citation from rockyroad. Bench personnel are "part of, or affiliated with a team". The crux of this thread is, what does it mean to be "part of, or affiliated with a team" ? Note that is says "a" team, singular, not "teams", plural. Many of us, including me, believe that there are six teams when we walk into a site, freshman, junior varsity, and varsity, home, and visitors. Others, like rockyroad, believe that there are only two teams there, home and visitors. We can debate this until the cows come home to roost, but unless we get an interpretation from the NFHS, or from our various state interscholastic sports governing bodies, then we're going to have to agree to disagree. |
Once again, let us get back on point.
Billy, Camron, and a few others are staying on point, the Original Play involves a player wearing a Varsity uniform participating in the Jr. Varsity warmups. We are NOT discussing fans being on the court and dunking the ball. Fans are NOT Bench Personnel; if a fan comes onto the court and dunks the ball, get game management to take care of business; this is not a TF.
I would suggest that my post (#83 on Page #6 of this thread) explains best how to handle the OP being discussed. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Sorry, but you are totally wrong to penalize the team competing for an action done by someone not part of the team. You don't get to decide if he is part of the team, the team/school decides if he is part of the team. |
Quote:
I doubt they'd allow a parent to participate...but if they did, that parent just became part of the coaching staff/bench personnel for as long as they're on the playing court or bench. Plus, I've yet to ever see a formal list of people that are team members or bench personnel until the 10-minute mark and, even then, it is not required that they list everyone, only those that may play....certainly not any one of the coaching staff or other personnel. |
Quote:
It strikes me as quite odd that someone who ranted about ejecting a parent who comes on the floor because their son/daughter is lying there injured will NOT call a T in a situation like this. |
Quote:
Hear a lot of what we can't or shouldn't do. |
Quote:
|
My stance has been consistent--removal of the person from the floor.
|
Dunkin' Donuts ...
Quote:
|
From our state organization (CHSAA):
Quote:
|
Quote:
Coaches have no conscience in what they tell you. "He didn't foul!" "He didn't travel!" etc. |
Easy-Peasy-Lemon-Squeezy ...
Quote:
Statements like these make it real easy to charge a technical foul for pregame dunking by a person who may not be on the team roster. Now do you also add the name to the book, to record the foul, and charge a technical foul for that? |
clarification needed please
As a fan/parent of a high school player, I'd be interested in hearing the definition of a dunk. Does the player have to touch the rim? Is it simply the act of throwing the ball down with force from above the rim? My son was warned during warmups for gently flipping the ball downward without touching the rim. I thought the spirit of the rule was to avoid damaging rims and "showing up" your opponents. No one has a problem if the ball is "dropped" into the basket from well above the rim. The distinction seems somewhat arbitrary to me.
For what it is worth, I found this message board last April and I have enjoyed learning more about the rules of the game. It has helped me immensely when watching the games. I know our team has a manditory parent meeting each year. A 10 minute presentation about the "Myths" I have been reading lately on this board would really help reduce the "chatter" I hear at most games :D |
Rule 4 - Definitions ...
Quote:
through the basket with the hand(s). A "flip downward" sounds like a push. A ball "dropped" into the basket doesn't sound like a push, it sounds like gravity is doing all the work. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
20 minutes out of their lives when they're not allowed to dunk, and all they can do is seek loopholes... |
Quote:
|
To answer the question, no, the definition of a dunk does not mention the rim.
|
Thanks. I don't want to give the impression that I think they should dunk in warm ups or even push the envelope. This happened last year when he was a freshman and I was curious more than anything. I realize that as officials you deal with over zealous parents on a regular basis but I would hope you are not so jaded that it is your first thought when someone asks a simple question.
I know that you know there are a lot of good kids out there. My son's varsity team had the highest grade point average in the state last year and I am a lot more proud of that than I am my son's ability (and height) that allows him to dunk a basketball. |
While Researching the Lack of Sufficient Action Rule.
Quote:
While researching the Lack of Sufficient Action Rule (http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post832912) I found a Play in the 1971-72 NBCUSC Casebook and it directly addresses the play being discussed. Please keep in mind that the rule regarding the submission of rosters and starters was different: Roster (10 minutes before the start of the game) and Starters (3 minutes before the start of the game). And the Game Officials jurisdiction started 30 minutes before the start of the game for both boys'/girls' high school and men's college (it still is 30 minutes for men's college). Casebook PLAY 409D: Twenty minutes prior to game startingt time, during the pre-game warm-up, several squad members of team A each dunk once with the officials, as well as the coach, as witnesses. When the coach submits his squad list to the scorer he deliberately omits the names of the violators. RULING: Even though the offenders' names are not included on the squad list, team A is assessed a technical foul for each act of dunking and the game starts with team B attempting the free throws. Anyone who participates in the pre-game warm-up is part of the squad, regardless of whether his name apperars on the squad list (R10-S6j). 1971-72 NBCUSC R10-S6j is now NFHS R10-S3-A3 and NCAA Men's R10-S6-A1e. MTD, Sr. P.S. To my knowledge this Casebook Play has never been superceded by another one in either the NFHS Casebook or NCAA Men's Casebook and Approved Rulings. P.P.S. This Casebook Play still only gets us halfway home. When it was added to the Casebook the TF was charged only to the team; it did not count toward the offender's five PFs and TFs; it did not count toward a team's foul total in a half; and DTF and IDTF charged to HCs did not exist yet. I do have one problem with CB 409D, as it would have been applied in 1971-72, and that is, the HC could then add those players to the Scorebook later in the game and his team would be charged a TF for each new name added to the Scorebook, which begs the question: When we add each player's name into the Scorebook, do we record that each player already has a TF for his pre-game dunk? I would say yes. CB 409D is silent as to whether the dunkers' names should be added to the Team Roster at the Ten Minute Mark. I interpret this silence to mean that the dunker's names are to be added to the Team Roster at the Ten Minute Mark. Therefore, to apply CB 409D to our current play, we would charge the team with a TF for the player's dunk, charge the HC with an IDTF, and if the HC wants to add the player's name to the Scorebook later in the game I would record a TF with the player's name for the pregame dunk. Therefore, to apply CB 409D to our current play, we would charge A1 (the dunker) with a DTF which would count toward Team A's seven and ten fouls for the first half, and Team A's HC is charged with a IDTF because of A1's DTF. And, A1's name should be added to Team A's Team Roster. P.P.P.S. I have rewritten the last two paragraphs in P.P.S. to blue. |
Again: Lack of due diligence by those who should now better.
I am sure that many of you are familiar with the Preseason Basketball Guide that NASO/Referee publishes in cooperation with NFHS. For a few years now, NASO/Referee publishes a special OhioHSAA Edition where the last four pages are for OhioHSAA officials only.
In this year's OhioHSAA Edition contains a section entitled: "Say It Ain't So". The sections contains six "myths" about the rules. My Comment now addresses Myth #6, but first let me review the play being this thread as been discussing. Previously in this thread (see Comment #83 on Page 6 of this thread dated Jan. 22/Sun.(01:38pmEST), 2012): "Let me first state upfront that the previously mentioned "The OHSAA Rebounder's Report" is a publication of the OhioHSAA edited by Jerry Snodgrass, and Assistant Commissioner of the OhioHSAA. The article in question was from Issue #4, January 18, 2012. I will quote the article in its entirety: "Varsity Players ‘warming up’ with JV Players at Pre-Game & Halftime? Consider this…. It happens everywhere more and more. Varsity players get out and warm-up with JV players. But consider this; when they do so, there is no distinguishing between a JV player and a varsity player. If the officials are on the floor, they have jurisdiction. So when that Varsity player wants to demonstrate his jumping ability and dunk….it is a “T” just like any other time. Might ‘seem’ farfetched at first, but nearly EVERY coach agrees the integrity of the game needs to be protected. It starts with simple enforcement of regular adopted game rules." Normally, I would state that this article has standing only in the jurisdicton of the OhioHSAA. But, because Henry Zaborniak, Jr., Assistant Commissioner of the OhioHSAA, is the current Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, the ruling stated in this article, no doubt, has Hank's support; meaning: "When E.F. Hutton speaks, people listen." Yes, I know, it is an old one that only we "bald old geezers" would recognize; even MTD, Jr., said that I was showing my age." I further stated in Comment #135 on Page 9 (Mar. 18/Sun.(06:23pmEDT), 2012) that Hank's ruling was not only valid in Ohio but is a valid NFHS and NCAA Men's (at the time) ruling because: "[1971-72 NBCUSC] Casebook Play 409D: Twenty minutes prior to game startingt time, during the pre-game warm-up, several squad members of team A each dunk once with the officials, as well as the coach, as witnesses. When the coach submits his squad list to the scorer he deliberately omits the names of the violators. RULING: Even though the offenders' names are not included on the squad list, team A is assessed a technical foul for each act of dunking and the game starts with team B attempting the free throws. Anyone who participates in the pre-game warm-up is part of the squad, regardless of whether his name apperars on the squad list (R10-S6j). 1971-72 NBCUSC R10-S6j is now [2011-12] NFHS R10-S3-A3 and [2012-12] NCAA Men's R10-S6-A1e." And now for "Myth #6: Apparent varsity players are shooting around during halftime of the JV contest. One or more of the students are observed dunking during the intermission. The varsity officials notice and penalize those players at the start of the varsity game. Fact #6: At this point in time, while it my be obvious these are varsity players, they are not part of the team participating in the JV game and are not subject to the dunking prohibition. This is the responsibility of game management and they should be left to address this mater if they wish. Varsity officials do not have any jurisdiction at this time and should also defer this matter to game management. Likewise, these students are also not under the jurisdiction of the JV officials and we would not them getting involved/penalizing either." I bring this up because it is a classic example of people who should now better not doing their due diligence and there by publishing in correct information. I am getting too old for this nonsense! MTD, Sr. |
Six Rule Myths ...
Quote:
Is one of them the myth that Columbus discovered America? Or that Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake". Or that Newton was hit on the head with an apple? |
It will be a cold day in hell before I whack a kid for dunking at halftime of the game before his.
Mainly because I’m in the dressing room during halftime and wouldn’t be on the court to see it happen. Secondarily because my jurisdiction for the second game hasn’t begun yet. (In South Carolina the varsity girls and boys play on the same night and we work DHs.) |
Quote:
I agree, but the JV officials had better whack him. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
For clarity’s sake, JV typically plays on a different night than varsity here. |
Quote:
No need for clarity's sake because you are misreading my reply. Per the Casebook Play, if the JV officials see the VAR player(s) dunking the ball during halftime of JV game, and infraction of the dunking rule has occurred. And maybe in your neck of the woods JV games are not played on the same night as the VAR games but in the 48 years that I have officiated boys'/girls' H.S. basketball I have officiated in Ohio (since 1971), Florida (1973 to 1977), California (1982-1984), and Michigan (since 1984), and in all of those states, the JV game is played immediately before the VAR game and in some leagues in Ohio a FR game is played immediately before the JV game. MTD, Sr. |
I find it hilarious that people think Referee publishes this stuff without consulting or working with the NFHS.
I find it even more hilarious when a 46 year old case play is cited as evidence of anything. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
They Just Fade Away ...
Quote:
Granted, caseplays disappear as old rules are changed, but are we to ignore the ones that hang around? Some caseplays disappear with no explanation (which is probably what Rich is talking about). Were they removed because they were no longer valid, or were they removed because of space considerations? "Ay there's the rub" (Hamlet', Act 3 Scene 3, Billy Shakespeare). |
Quote:
1) The last four pages of the Preseason Guide is strictly OhioHSAA produced and really has anything to do with NASO. 2) The NFHS dunking rule has never been changed such as to invalidate the 1971-72 Casebook Play. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
So your bitch is with the OhioHSAA? I'm confused, I guess. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
Quote:
Just because a Casebook Play is not in the current Casebook does not invalidate it. Far too many officials take the attitude that if it isn't in the current Casebook is does not exist or is no longer valid which is 100% incorrect. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
My point is that in 2011-12 Hank Zaborniak, Jr., while Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee, in his capacity as an OhioHSAA Asst. Commissioner made ruling supported by Rule and Casebook Play. His ruling was meant for OhioHSAA basketball officials but the Casebook Play supported a NFHS Ruling. And yet six years later, with no change in the NFHS Rules, someone in the OhioHSAA issued a ruling that is contradictory to a correct ruling that had already been made. MTD, Sr. |
Correctness is always an opinion and those change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You obviously did not read the Casebook Play did you? MTD, Sr. |
We may simply not care.
As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
Shakespeare On The Forum, Who Would Have Thunk It ...
Quote:
Quote:
If a casebook play is removed due to space considerations, then it's still valid. Figuring out why the caseplay was removed, often with no explanation from the NFHS, is the hard part. "Ay there's the rub" |
Nope. Can't show it to a coach or assigner, it doesn't exist. There is no limit on the size of a digital case book, and they still limit it.
Expecting officials to know to look up a 1971-1972 case play is beyond the pale. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
Problems Abound ...
Quote:
However just because a caseplay interpretation isn't in the current casebook, and disappeared with no explanation, doesn't mean it didn't exist, or is no longer valid. Sometimes the NFHS just screws up their annual edits. The captains lineup after numerous substitutions disappeared for a few years until some of us pointed it out to the NFHS. They didn't want to remove it from the rulebook, they just screwed up. Same problem with the NFHS annual interpretations. How is a rookie official supposed to know about an annual interpretation that was published three years ago? If the rule hasn't changed, does that make it less valid? Quote:
If you know (again, if you know, because if you don't, this doesn't apply) about an interpretation that was dropped with no explanation, possibly due to space considerations, or an error, and you can still find it after much research, then it's probably still valid. We don't know what we don't know. At least we can't be faulted for that. Luckily for us, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is very old, remembers just about everything, like an elephent, and knows practically everything there is to know. |
Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.
|
Shakespeare ??? Again ???
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
In the legal world, we often talk about controlling authority and persuasive authority. A court is bound by controlling authority (e.g., a US Supreme Court ruling on an issue of federal law). A court will carefully consider persuasive authority (e.g., a California Court will consider the logic behind a New York court ruling, but is not obligated to follow it).
It seems to me that no-longer-published cases are a form of persuasive authority: as we don't know why they left he book or what may have changed in the interim, they should not be slavishly followed; but since they were controlling at one point, they should be carefully considered before reaching a contrary conclusion. YMMV. |
Bermuda Triangle ???
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Have them ask me, :p! MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
"Grasping either basket except to prevent injury; dunking or stuffing, or attempting to dunk or stuff a dead ball." |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19pm. |