non-player IP and Tape approval

[James Neil]

In took my test last night. Including the two errors on the key (#1, #82) I got a 96.
BUT I MUST PROTEST!
#26 says “Tape wrapped around the hand to protect an injury need not be approved by the umpire.
So I dig into rule 1 and read 1-5-2 “The following auxiliary equipment may be worn if sanctioned by the umpire as…bla, bla, bla
I read on to 1-5-2 b.”Tape, bandage or bla, bla, bla, EXECEPTION: Tape bandage or …bla…bla, bla … are legal without inspection or approval

Hummm. Sounds like the answer is true to me. BUT NOOOOOOO The question deals with approval. The Rule starts out talking sanctioned by the umpire and ends up “are legal without inspection or approval “

Who ever came up with this question is an A$$ LOL

Then I miss #62 “illegal participation can be a non-player foul”
Well that’s got to be true. I know this because I just read #9 under ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION in the case book. “If a non-player hinders an opponent outside the field of play it constitutes illegal participation.”

So tell me why the key says false?

[actmiller]

I agree with the tape question. Less than three wraps and no approval is required; otherwise must be santioned by the umpire. ON your other question, even though it was a non-player, it is treated as a live-ball player foul. Example: A player comes off the bench to tackle a runner who appears to be headed for a touchdown. Illegal participation from the basic spot.

[Jim S]

Tape question. Go back and read the rule again guys. What part of the body is the question about? And what part(s) of the body is exempted?
Question has to do with what it asks Jimmy!

actmiller, your example is not a non-player, he is a substitute (see definition), and is covered as such under the illegal participation rules. A non-player is someone such as a coach trainer, doctor etc., AND a substitute, or replaced payer "who does not participate by touching the ball, hindering an opponent, or influencing the play."
In other words, if he does participate, he wasn't a non-player. HUH?
Jimmy I think this is where the confusion comes from. It's the casebook using the term non-player. I believe here they are talking about substitutes and such. But then I could be mistaken. I would lean more to the unfair act in this case.

[Edited by Jim S on Sep 9th, 2004 at 05:36 PM]

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Jim S
Tape question. Go back and read the rule again guys. What part of the body is the question about? And what part(s) of the body is exempted?
Question has to do with what it asks Jimmy!

Concerning # 26 As an umpire I always look the players over while heading over to find the head coach with the WH and now I see what the question is referring to and agree I missed it. , But that doesn't belay the fact that the question sucks!

Originally posted by Jim S
Jimmy I think this is where the confusion comes from. It's the casebook using the term non-player. I believe here they are talking about substitutes and such. But then I could be mistaken. I would lean more to the unfair act in this case

!
The IP question is one I seem to have trouble with ever year. I start out thinking it’s false but then always have that feeling I’m missing something. So I dig further and end up digging my self into a ditch.
Well next year I’ll ace it for sure (I say that every year). That is if they can come up with an accurate key.

[jrfath]

Then I miss #62 “illegal participation can be a non-player foul”
Well that’s got to be true. I know this because I just read #9 under ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION in the case book. “If a non-player hinders an opponent outside the field of play it constitutes illegal participation.”

So tell me why the key says false?

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________

This question is on the test every year...it is on the ARS CD multiple times, and that is the only reason I get it right.
I think the Federatation has two definitions of
"Non-player/nonplayer".
1. Non-player - Coach, Stat Boy, Water Boy, etc...
2. Nonplayer - A player in uniform who is not in the game at that moment(i.e. a substitute)...

I think the meaning behind the question is that you can only have illegal participation on "players"...meaning players in the game and players who are substitutes. You can not have illegal participation on coaches or water boys. Therefore, illegal participation can NOT be a non-player foul.

This was explained to me by another official this year when debating this, and makes sense.

And now that I look closer, the test "non-player" is hyphenated.

The case book "nonplayer" is not.