Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Camron,
There are two NFHS play rulings that are insightful here.
However, first let me state that MTD has made this same argument before. In a previous thread he stated that the rule requiring a team to play with five players trumps the substitutions rules which mandate that a withdrawn player or player directed to leave the game due to blood, injury, or improper uniform sit out for a tick of the clock.
His logic was completely refuted by the following NFHS interp from 2002-03:
|
Nice, but irrelevant citations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)
|
That player had never left the game....and a team can not be forced to take the timeout. So, the team basically has the choice to take the timeout or play with 4.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Additionally, we have 3.3.3 Situation B which tells us that a withdrawn player is NOT an eligible substitute because he can't properly attempt technical foul free throws as any eligible substitute can do per 8-3. This ruling provides the strongest language that such a team member is NOT an eligible substitute at that time. The officials simply made a mistake in allowing A1 to return and attempt the FTs.
ILLEGAL ENTRY
3.3.3 SITUATION B: Team B is charged with a technical foul for an excess time-out. During this stopped-clock interval, A1 is replaced by A6. A1 then returns to the game and attempts the two free throws which are: (a) both successful; (b) both unsuccessful; or (c) one is successful and one is not. RULING: Once A1 re-entered, even illegally, and the ball became live, A1 was a legal player at that point. The resulting action in (a), (b) and (c) stands. The situation does not come under the provisions of the correctable-error rule, nor is there any provision for penalizing either Team A or A1. (3-3-4; 8-3)
|
Team A had 5 healthy and non-disqualified players without A1 returning. There was no conflict between having 5 players and the substitution rule. A1 entered illegally because there was no rule that could even be argued to apply. Nice try but no cigar.
Neither of these citations are definitive....they're similar, but not definitive.
Now, consider the following unlikely but plausible play...
Team A and B each have 10 players...all eligible. During a dead ball, team A and team B each sub all 5 players for the 5 on the bench. Before the clock is started, the 10 players who just entered get into a fight and are disqualified (there were 10 players involved in the recent WNBA fight). The players on the bench do not participate in the fight. By your interpretation, none of the remaining non-DQ'd players can be allowed into the game. Since there are no players in the game, the clock can't be started (who's going to execute a throwin). Since the clock can't be started, the players can't come into the game. We're gonna be here a long time!
At some point, the rule requiring players to be on the court clearly trumps the requirement that they remain out after being substituted.
The situation above (#5) is closest but is missing the 6th player who is healthy and able to play and was removed before an injury....akin to replacing a starter before the game begins when one becomes injured during warmups.