By The Book ...

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Before the pregame ten minute mark, both head coaches requested to have players' names added to the official book because they expected these players to eventually show up, but due to transportation issues, they would probably be late.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why this is so complicated. If there's a remote chance that team members would become players, what's the harm of putting them in the book in the first place? What's the harm of putting them in the book, even if they're injured and can't play?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why this is so complicated. If there's a remote chance that team members would become players, what's the harm of putting them in the book in the first place? What's the harm of putting them in the book, even if they're injured and can't play?

Billy asked if this were a test question would he have been correct allowing names to be put in book of players not present. there's no harm in putting names in early which is why we all allow it. however, when you read the provisions cited above, the definition of "team member" in the rules, there is an argument that players have to be in uniform and present before they can be put in the book. if you could put everyone in early there would be no reason to have a penalty for adding names after the 10 minute mark. again, it's dumb, no harm in it etc and im filing this right next to some of the multiple fouls. but if there's a test question i have a strong feeling that the correct answer would say players have to be present and in uniform before they can be put in book.

[SAJ]

Players around here all wear warm-ups, so I don't go around checking to make sure each one has an actual uniform on underneath them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SAJ

Players around here all wear warm-ups, so I don't go around checking to make sure each one has an actual uniform on underneath them.

Players going commando? Interesting.

[zm1283]

This feels like a thread that would come up in June when we have nothing else to talk about.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why this is so complicated?

This (below) complicates it. I got it wrong nine years ago, and it still sticks in my craw.

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005: Question 73. Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warmup, the referee counts eleven team members of team A but while checking the book team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation: Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

Back in 2005, I would have bet my house that IAABO would make a correction on this question, and would change the correct answer to "No".

I'm now homeless.

And I still haven't lost any sleep (I sleep under a bridge) because we allowed the names to be added to the book Friday night.

Stupid IAABO. Who died and made them the king?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This (below) complicates it. I got it wrong nine years ago, and it still sticks in my craw.

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005: Question 73. Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warmup, the referee counts eleven team members of team A but while checking the book team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation: Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

Hmmm, never saw that before. I'd fall back on Roman Law.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Hmmm, never saw that before. I'd fall back on Roman Law.

Please note that this is an IAABO exam question, not a NFHS exam question. IAABO exam questions are supposed to be based on NFHS rules, key phrase, "supposed to".