Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I've disagreed with the rationale given in the ruling of Case Book play 10.3.3 Sit B (2006-07 version) for a few years now: "A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced." There was no such rule which stated that this was illegal or a T. There was nothing upon which to base this ruling.
So now the NFHS has changed this Case Book play. The 2007-08 version says, "No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court."
But the question now must be what if it does?
|
There was (and is) a rule that justified the technical: 10-3-3: "A player shall not delay returning after legally being out of bounds."
The reality is that nothing in the rule has changed...only the Fed's ruling as to what to do. This year's case book play is
EXACTLY the same as last year's. Only the ruling has changed.
The player who got confused during a "lengthy substitution process involving multiple subsitutions" and went to the bench is off the court for an authorized reason. When he "delays returning" he rightly was charged with a technical. The rules support is clear. Now it is clear as mud.
It is ironic how the Fed has been stressing the last few years that officials must follow the rules and apply them consistently. We are not supposed to let our personal interpretations overcome the rules. Yet what else are we to make of this change? No rule changed. No new wrinkle was added to the play. The Fed just decided it is now OK for a player who was in the game to come off the bench (as long as it is not after a time out or intermission) without penalty.
I will follow the "rule." But I don't like it either.