Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Now I recognize the difference between the two caseplays (as stated earlier), one is after a timeout, one is after substitutions.
However, I fail to recognize the significance of different rulings on very similar, but not exactly the same, circumstances, i.e., playing with four after a break in the action.
|
There shouldn't be a difference in my opinion. It is something which the NFHS needs to fix.
If you recall, the "lengthy substitution process" case play was added about nine years ago. The other one has been in the books for much longer. Prior to the more recent case play being added to the book, we had discussions on here about how to handle the situation when a team ended up with only four and it wasn't after a time-out or intermission.
Also, please recall that at that time the penalty for a player leaving the floor was a technical foul, not a violation. So we kicked around several proposed solutions--none of which quite fit the situation. It was nice when the NFHS gave us a ruling on the scenario, but it was disappointing to me that the ruling didn't mesh with the "following a time-out or intermission" ruling. I knew then that this would cause confusion. I also don't believe that the newer ruling meshes with the text of 3-3-1 and 4-34-1. Why? Because a team is required to have five players per the first rule and those five are required to be on the court by the second rule. Therefore, it is a problem that one of the five isn't where he is supposed to be.