3 against 1

[Sco53]

Boys soph prelim last night, 2nd quarter. Foul called on white 32, table buzzes and says no 32 in the book. Sure enough he's not in there but he is on the roster that's right there on the table. VC starts chirping that it's a TF after I announce it's a book keeping error. HC comes over and agrees that it's a TF and my partner comes over and signals the T and tells the HC he has to sit. I managed to talk my P out of sitting the HC, but he insisted that it was a TF. The book was verified for total number of players at 10:00, somehow this got through. I gave up the fight when it was 3 against 1, and went with the flow.
Anybody know if there's a case for this type of situation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sco53

Boys soph prelim last night, 2nd quarter. Foul called on white 32, table buzzes and says no 32 in the book. Sure enough he's not in there but he is on the roster that's right there on the table. VC starts chirping that it's a TF after I announce it's a book keeping error. HC comes over and agrees that it's a TF and my partner comes over and signals the T and tells the HC he has to sit. I managed to talk my P out of sitting the HC, but he insisted that it was a TF. The book was verified for total number of players at 10:00, somehow this got through. I gave up the fight when it was 3 against 1, and went with the flow.
Anybody know if there's a case for this type of situation?

The rule says the coaches must supply the roster to the official book by the 10 minute mark. The coach did that, he complied with the rule. Not sure if there's a case play or not, though.

[Rich1]

In my pregame with the coaches I draw a line under the last name entered and have the coach sign the book. I specifically say he is signing to verify all uniforms are correct & legal, all equipment is legal or medically necessary, and that all names and numbers in the book are correct, etc.

Not saying your situation should have been a T since he did give the bookkeeper the names, but if he signned the book then its on him.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

In my pregame with the coaches I draw a line under the last name entered and have the coach sign the book. I specifically say he is signing to verify all uniforms are correct & legal, all equipment is legal or medically necessary, and that all names and numbers in the book are correct, etc.

Not saying your situation should have been a T since he did give the bookkeeper the names, but if he signned the book then its on him.

By rule, there's nothing that says he's responsible for anything other than providing the scorer the information. Whether he signs or not doesn't affect that.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Adam

By rule, there's nothing that says he's responsible for anything other than providing the scorer the information. Whether he signs or not doesn't affect that.

Almost everyone in my area does this as well, and I've tried to explain to them that he is only liable for providing the scorer with his roster. I would not give a team a technical even if he signed off and the scorer had copied it down incorrectly. When I bring this up to partners that do this, I hear a lot of "Anything we find wrong after he signs off is a technical".

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Almost everyone in my area does this as well, and I've tried to explain to them that he is only liable for providing the scorer with his roster. I would not give a team a technical even if he signed off and the scorer had copied it down incorrectly. When I bring this up to partners that do this, I hear a lot of "Anything we find wrong after he signs off is a technical".

Making sh!t up is a favorite pastime of quite as few officials, I'm afraid.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Almost everyone in my area does this as well, and I've tried to explain to them that he is only liable for providing the scorer with his roster. I would not give a team a technical even if he signed off and the scorer had copied it down incorrectly. When I bring this up to partners that do this, I hear a lot of "Anything we find wrong after he signs off is a technical".

Tell them you’ll go along with that theory as soon as they find something in the rule book to support it.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

Had this happen tonight-first team of refs ask each HC to sign the book under their last player in the book. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is only a T if the player in question is not on the roster submitted at 10 minutes? If it is a copying error add and play on.

[constable]

Originally Posted by Sco53

Boys soph prelim last night, 2nd quarter. Foul called on white 32, table buzzes and says no 32 in the book. Sure enough he's not in there but he is on the roster that's right there on the table. VC starts chirping that it's a TF after I announce it's a book keeping error. HC comes over and agrees that it's a TF and my partner comes over and signals the T and tells the HC he has to sit. I managed to talk my P out of sitting the HC, but he insisted that it was a TF. The book was verified for total number of players at 10:00, somehow this got through. I gave up the fight when it was 3 against 1, and went with the flow.
Anybody know if there's a case for this type of situation?

I haven't seen a case on it. You are correct- book keeping error. Your partner was incorrect in attempting to seatbelt the coach- team technical fouls are not charged indirectly.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

Had this happen tonight-first team of refs ask each HC to sign the book under their last player in the book. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is only a T if the player in question is not on the roster submitted at 10 minutes? If it is a copying error add and play on.

You are correct.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Sco53

Boys soph prelim last night, 2nd quarter. Foul called on white 32, table buzzes and says no 32 in the book. Sure enough he's not in there but he is on the roster that's right there on the table. VC starts chirping that it's a TF after I announce it's a book keeping error. HC comes over and agrees that it's a TF and my partner comes over and signals the T and tells the HC he has to sit. I managed to talk my P out of sitting the HC, but he insisted that it was a TF. The book was verified for total number of players at 10:00, somehow this got through. I gave up the fight when it was 3 against 1, and went with the flow.
Anybody know if there's a case for this type of situation?

... is that it is really 1 v 1. You and your crew mate. The opinions of the coaches are not a factor here. Sounds like you knew the rule, but relented to a wave of resistance. Bottom line though, is you let your crew kick a rule.

An approach to consider:
Get the noise out. Make sure coaches are not near the table, and if need be send players to bench area.
Get all the information you need to make a ruling.
Get together with your crew away from others.
Sort it out.
If you are 100%, tell your partner it is on you and you will take the heat.
Come to a decision.
Have your whole crew give a visible nod of agreement (even if some have reservations).
Get coaches together and explain your ruling.
Begin that explanation with "By rule, ..."
Tell them what will happen next. End of interaction.
Resume play.

[bainsey]

I seek clarity here. Is it the understanding of some that bookkeeping errors are never technical fouls? Because, those listed in 10-1-2 say the penalty is a team technical (limit one administrative). The situation in the OP looks like it fits.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by bainsey

bookkeeping errors are never technical fouls?

This is correct, bookkeeping errors are not technical fouls. The team is responsible for providing the official scorer with their roster and starters. They are not responsible for transcribing that information from the list they give the scorer into the scorebook. In the OP, the team provided the scorer with a list of their roster. The player in dispute was on the roster they provided. It is the scorers fault, not the teams fault that that player was not listed in the scorebook. If the player in dispute was not on the roster provided to the scorer, than a technical foul would be assessed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I seek clarity here. Is it the understanding of some that bookkeeping errors are never technical fouls? Because, those listed in 10-1-2 say the penalty is a team technical (limit one administrative). The situation in the OP looks like it fits.

Originally Posted by johnny d

This is correct, bookkeeping errors are not technical fouls. The team is responsible for providing the official scorer with their roster and starters. They are not responsible for transcribing that information from the list they give the scorer into the scorebook. In the OP, the team provided the scorer with a list of their roster. The player in dispute was on the roster they provided. It is the scorers fault, not the teams fault that that player was not listed in the scorebook. If the player in dispute was not on the roster provided to the scorer, than a technical foul would be assessed.

Exactly.

Why would you penalized team V just because team H's scorer copied their info incorrectly?

[Rich1]

While I am a proponent of having the coaches verify the information and sign the book before the game begins, I also see no reason why you wouldn't evaluate the situation and make a decision based on judgement. I have had situations where it was clear that the bookkeepr wrote 34 instead of 43 and we were able to verify that by looking at the other books or the roster supplied by the coaches. I see this situation as not different. One of our jobs as referees is you use our best judgement to ensure the spirit of the game is upheld and a tech in this situation is not fair if the team had no control over the book.