Interesting finish to a state tournament game

[Toren]

This play was 100% preventable. How can the officials let two replacements into the game and not ensure that one of them is for the disqualified player?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Toren

This play was 100% preventable. How can the officials let two replacements into the game and not ensure that one of them is for the disqualified player?

That was my thought when the reporter gave me his account. According to the officials' manual the person administering the DQ bears most of the responsibility but all three should know.

My mentors idiot-proofed the procedure for us a long time ago:

*Tell partner(s)
*Tell player
*Tell head coach
*Start timer
*Make the head coach replace the DQed player first, then bring in any other subs who were already at the table when the DQ took place

Basically, do anything possible to make sure we don't have to call a T.

[Adam]

They lost focus, but it seems they dealt with it correctly after that. Just like a six-players T, only far less likely.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

That was my thought when the reporter gave me his account. According to the officials' manual the person administering the DQ bears most of the responsibility but all three should know.

My mentors idiot-proofed the procedure for us a long time ago:

*Tell partner(s)
*Tell player
*Tell head coach
*Start timer
*Make the head coach replace the DQed player first, then bring in any other subs who were already at the table when the DQ took place

Basically, do anything possible to make sure we don't have to call a T.

2-8-4: Notify the head coach and request the timer to begin the replacement interval, and then notify the player on a disqualification.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

2-8-4: Notify the head coach and request the timer to begin the replacement interval, and then notify the player on a disqualification.

Sorry, got them reversed. Though in an ideal situation I'd like the kid notified - by my partner - at the same time as the coach just so the player is heading in the right direction, i.e., their bench.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Sorry, got them reversed. Though in an ideal situation I'd like the kid notified - by the non-calling official - at the same time as the coach just so the player is heading in the right direction, i.e., their bench.

Technically the non-calling official is responsible for DQ'ed procedures. Not the calling official. According to the officials manual.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Technically the non-calling official is responsible for DQ'ed procedures. Not the calling official. According to the officials manual.

One of these posts I'll get it right on paper/my computer screen . I meant my partner and I changed it in the original.

One thing I am sure of is I've found the responsibility of notifying the coach/player tends to be split. I've done it and I've had a lot of partners as well who, if they're the lucky one to call the fifth foul under NFHS rules, end up telling the coach the kid has fouled out right after they report the foul. It's all a matter of whether the coach is losing his/her mind with the call.

I do about 2/3 of my games under NCAAW mechanics between college and NYS Girls' H.S. so I end up in front of the table more often than not when I call a foul and always after I call a shooting foul so I'll end up telling the coach about a DQ instead of my partner.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

One of these posts I'll get it right on paper/my computer screen . I meant my partner and I changed it in the original.

One thing I am sure of is I've found the responsibility of notifying the coach/player tends to be split. I've done it and I've had a lot of partners as well who, if they're the lucky one to call the fifth foul under NFHS rules, end up telling the coach the kid has fouled out right after they report the foul. It's all a matter of whether the coach is losing his/her mind with the call.

I do about 2/3 of my games under NCAAW mechanics between college and NYS Girls' H.S. so I end up in front of the table more often than not when I call a foul and always after I call a shooting foul so I'll end up telling the coach about a DQ instead of my partner.

JMF,

I got what you are saying. I believe even in at the NCAA level manual the non-calling official handles the DQ'ed procedure. Yes, its more convenient for official who is already table side to perform those duties.

[Rich]

Technically or not, I can't remember the last time a partner notified a coach on a disqualifying foul I called...or vice versa. I'm there reporting, I'm going straight to the coach. Would I alter this if the coach is losing his mind? Maybe.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Technically the non-calling official is responsible for DQ'ed procedures. Not the calling official. According to the officials manual.

Where is this located? Seems to me this is never the case.

[doubleringer]

I was not there, but here is my understanding of how this situation went down. This information has been compiled through conversations with people who had conversations with people who had conversations with people that were there. In other words, I would love to see some video on this.

A player committed his 5th foul. The bench informed the officials, the officials informed the head coach and the player. There were already substitutes waiting at the bench to enter the game. When the stubstitutes were brought into the game, the disqualified player did not leave, although other players on his team did. There were two free throws shot, with a rebound on the second free throw before an official noticed the disqualified player was still in the game. He killed the play, they conferenced as a crew, and assessed the techinical foul.

Personally, I think everyone here could have done a better job of managing this situation. When the scorer put in the substitutes, they could have alerted the crew to the fact that the DQ'd player was still on the floor. The officials could have paused before the free throw and realized the DQ's player was still on the floor. Ultimately, and I'm of course a little biased toward the crew, the players and coaches should have made sure the correct player was substituted for. All in all, a bad situation to end a game, but once it happened, they did the correct thing in assessting the technical foul.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the events, from my conversations over the last day or so.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Toren

Where is this located? Seems to me this is never the case.

I will locate it for you. You are correct it is not the case.

[truerookie]

Toren,

I was partially correct.

In 2 person the non-calling official will handle DQ'ed procedures. That information can be located on page 37 under Disqualification Procedures in the officials manual.

In 3 person the table side (Trail or Center) will handle DQ'ed procedures. That information can be located on page 75 under Disqualification Procedures in the officials manual.

[tref]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Toren,

I was partially correct.

In 2 person the non-calling official will handle DQ'ed procedures. That information can be located on page 37 under Disqualification Procedures in the officials manual.

In 3 person the table side (Trail or Center) will handle DQ'ed procedures. That information can be located on page 75 under Disqualification Procedures in the officials manual.

A little different us IAABO folks...
Toren pg 55 (2 person) & 136 (3 person)

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by tref

A little different us IAABO folks...
Toren pg 55 (2 person) & 136 (3 person)

Ok, didn't know IAABO was in the house..