Intentionally Leaving The Court. Violation?

[Knights_Coach]

Adam, I get what you're saying. I have got to let it go. I'm just venting. I do think that this causes some interpretation instead of following the rules. I do believe it's put in there for preventive officiating.

From what I heard, the reason it's in there is for everyone's safety. I was told that he may harm himself in the locker room or what if he had a weapon in his bag and came back out w/ it because he was upset and harmed others.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

From what I heard, the reason it's in there is for everyone's safety. I was told that he may harm himself in the locker room or what if he had a weapon in his bag and came back out w/ it because he was upset and harmed others.

That's a bit extreme. Kids should be supervised - simple as that. I realize middle school is the center of your universe, but for officials it's the starting point. Perspective is key here. If you obsess too much about officiating at the middle school level, you will find yourself in the parking lot more often than you or your AD will probably like.

[Knights_Coach]

Point taken. I'll never be the type to be in the parking lot arguing over calls. I know it doesn't seem like it in the forum. But I've laughed about this so many times. I understand now, the rules are not always to be taken literally.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

Adam, I get what you're saying. I have got to let it go. I'm just venting. I do think that this causes some interpretation instead of following the rules. I do believe it's put in there for preventive officiating.

From what I heard, the reason it's in there is for everyone's safety. I was told that he may harm himself in the locker room or what if he had a weapon in his bag and came back out w/ it because he was upset and harmed others.

That's exactly why it's there, but there's no penalty for it.

[Pantherdreams]

I don't think the problem is with the rule or its enforcement. The problem was in how the official went about enforcing of all the options within his perview he went with the most disruptive to managing the game.

Option A) Disregard entirely he has no knowledge of why the player would head to the locker room. Washroom, get water, puffer, tape, injury, etc. If the coach was not allowing him or wanting him to go he would have stopped him. Thus authorized.

Option B) Allow player to go remind coach if he's going to leave area he needs supervision. Leave it up to coach to be responsible. Coach listens and doesn't give him anything else to worry about. Authorized.

Option C) Stop the player from leaving. Make the player return. Pause the entire game while doing. Disrupt and upset everyone involved more.

Option D)Coach Kinght's Prefernce - Penalize without explanation, reason or chance to correct. (Risking egg on your face only to find out later kid had a valid reason for leaving floor - we know what the visual is by walking like a duck don't make me a mallard) Now the game is dirupted, given undo advantage to the other team in a situation that did not clearly need to be penalized.

Option A or B solves it. C or D you now have disruption and increased stress/anxiety and Coach Knight expects recompense in the choice of D but has to suffer through C.

[Knights_Coach]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's exactly why it's there, but there's no penalty for it.

No penalty? I've dropped my case, I'm letting it go. I understand some rules have to be taken subjectively, they are not to catch anyone, they are there for the safety and regulation of the game. But Adam, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, you're wrong, there's a penalty.

NFHS Basketball Rule Book 2014-15 Rule 10-5-5 states:
"The head coach shall not permit team members to leave the bench area and/or playing court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 5) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. The foul is charged directly to the head coach. (Arts. 3, 5) Penalized if discovered while being violated. (Art. 4) Penalized when discovered. (Arts. 4, 5) Only one technical foul is charged regardless of the number of offenders.

But everyone is saying it's something we just tell the coach, the player has to return and move on. If the player disrespects the ref while leaving the court then, we'll tech him. If there was no gain, no harm no foul. Right?

I'm no longer arguing my point. My whole agenda was to be educated not entertain or stir up anything. Seems like everyone is jumping on me like I did something wrong. Pantherdreams, I like the options. I realize now that a ref has to weigh out his options vs just "ding" throw a tech. I see that the Rule Book is not a recipe book that you have to follow to the letter. There's discretion to be taken.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

NFHS Basketball Rule Book 2014-15 Rule 10-5-5 states:
"The head coach shall not permit team members to leave the bench area and/or playing court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 5) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. The foul is charged directly to the head coach. (Arts. 3, 5) Penalized if discovered while being violated. (Art. 4) Penalized when discovered. (Arts. 4, 5) Only one technical foul is charged regardless of the number of offenders.

Unauthorized reason, usually when they leave its authorized. Kid is acting up coach sends him to the locker room or out the gym, that's authorized. It's a very vague rule and meant to stop deceitful behavior for gains.

You are just doing what most coaches do is get fixated on what you want to hear. This inability to comprehend what's being told/explained is a special power that most to all coaches have. Your only sense of reality when it comes to basketball is that which you have constructed in your head.

The fact also remains that some rules are very loosely adhered to at lower levels. The higher the level the more strict the letter of the law is applied, that's the fact, and its for many reason. The officials my not know, the game is not as organized, etc. It is what it is. In your case, it's middle school. The last time I worked a MS game where the coach thought he was Pat Riley and his team was Showtime I can tell you that within 3 minutes of the game starting he had a T, couple of his players had T's, and the game was nothing like showtime. It was like a MS game. It was sloppy, boring, every fan knew all the rules. Each parent's kid was the superstar who was going to make the NBA, and the coach was dangling on one thread.

That was also the last time I worked a MS game. I don't care about the kids. I don't care about the coaches. I care about the job I do on the court. I work to manage the game and hope that things go smoothly. I will answer questions, I will not coach or educate. I have learned that unless asked no one (players and coaches) don't want to hear. Heck even when asked, they don't really want to hear.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

No penalty? I've dropped my case, I'm letting it go. I understand some rules have to be taken subjectively, they are not to catch anyone, they are there for the safety and regulation of the game. But Adam, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, you're wrong, there's a penalty.

NFHS Basketball Rule Book 2014-15 Rule 10-5-5 states:
"The head coach shall not permit team members to leave the bench area and/or playing court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 5) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. The foul is charged directly to the head coach. (Arts. 3, 5) Penalized if discovered while being violated. (Art. 4) Penalized when discovered. (Arts. 4, 5) Only one technical foul is charged regardless of the number of offenders.

But everyone is saying it's something we just tell the coach, the player has to return and move on. If the player disrespects the ref while leaving the court then, we'll tech him. If there was no gain, no harm no foul. Right?

I'm no longer arguing my point. My whole agenda was to be educated not entertain or stir up anything. Seems like everyone is jumping on me like I did something wrong. Pantherdreams, I like the options. I realize now that a ref has to weigh out his options vs just "ding" throw a tech. I see that the Rule Book is not a recipe book that you have to follow to the letter. There's discretion to be taken.

There's no penalty for the rule that says a player can't go to the locker room without supervision.

The rule you quote was not written for this scenario, and any official who applies it to your situation would find himself working a lot of middle school games. The fact is, most of us would consider a kid going to the lockerroom to be an "authorized reason," and the rule is sufficiently vague on that.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly
NFHS Basketball Rule Book 2014-15 Rule 10-5-5 states:
"The head coach shall not permit team members to leave the bench area and/or playing court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 5) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. The foul is charged directly to the head coach. (Arts. 3, 5) Penalized if discovered while being violated. (Art. 4) Penalized when discovered. (Arts. 4, 5) Only one technical foul is charged regardless of the number of offenders.

I think the issue is that your definition of unauthorized is way more stringent then most officials and their supervisors would ask to enforce. If they are not storming the court, going up into the stands from the bench, interfering with play etc (things Coach wouldn't and clearly couldn't authorize) we accept the movement is authorized. Player wants to refill water bottle, head to locker to cool off metaphorically or literally, get meds/tape etc. We work on the assumption that all those absences are authorzied; if the coach is not stopping them or uspet by their absence or movement then they are ok with it. So the player leaving the floor to go to the locker room is authorized.

Now, the player needing to be supervised which is why the official brought them back is not a penalty tech, just needs to be taken care of. Your official chose to take care of the entire process himself instead of reminding the coach to take care of it.

[Knights_Coach]

Ok, so do we all agree on 2 things: 1.) there is a such a rule and 2.) I'm wrong, I'm applying it incorrectly, my scenario doesn't fit the rule.

Remember I'm not a trained official and never have claimed to know it all, I'm still learning.

So my question is, when would you call this tech? And if you say, when the player yells or takes off his shirt or disrespects the ref, I think you're now making it about him disrespecting the ref and not applying it to the rule as it is stated.

I get it, if he goes into the stands like Ron Artest and starts fighting but if I could get one I'd really appreciate it. I'm really enjoying the conversations and I hope I'm not upsetting anyone.

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

Ok, so do we all agree on 2 things: 1.) there is a such a rule and 2.) I'm wrong, I'm applying it incorrectly, my scenario doesn't fit the rule.

Remember I'm not a trained official and never have claimed to know it all, I'm still learning.

So my question is, when would you call this tech? And if you say, when the player yells or takes off his shirt or disrespects the ref, I think you're now making it about him disrespecting the ref and not applying it to the rule as it is stated.

I get it, if he goes into the stands like Ron Artest and starts fighting but if I could get one I'd really appreciate it. I'm really enjoying the conversations and I hope I'm not upsetting anyone.

You're fine

At your level you will find all kinds of referees -- guys who go strictly by the rule/case book, guys who are lax and let anything go, and guys somewhere in the middle. As you coach at higher levels you will encounter better referees (hopefully), the wheat separated from the chaff. At your level it's more like the Wild West.

To be honest I'm not totally sure what constitutes an authorized reason to leave the court versus an unauthorized one. The case book tells us certain things are unauthorized reasons, but I would prefer a list in the rule book. I guess if it's not specified in the case book then it is up to our (hopefully) good judgement.