[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've cited a rule that say an injured player may stay in the game only if a timeout is taken...and must sit out if not. It goes on to say that say that the team MAY continue with four and further says that the injured player may reenter later.

Yep, I've cited an NFHS ruling that the substitution rules takes priority over having five players on the court. You and MTD claim the exact opposite. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've cited another that says a sub becomes a player even if the entry is illegal when the ball become live. The case really has nothing to do with why the entry is illegal...just that it becomes legal when the ball becomes live.

How can you debate this issue if you miss the very reason that I cited that case play? So let me spell it out for you. I didn't cite 3.3.3 Situation B because it tells us that an illegally entered team member becomes a player when the ball becomes live, I cited it because it tells us that a player who has just subbed out is NOT an eligible substitute until the clock runs. The NFHS, not me, is defining that team member as NOT eligible at this time. The play ruling tells us that the officials mistakenly allowed A1 to return. They should not have done that and neither should you. How much clearer can that be?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Neither case comprehends the situation where a team has 5 players on the court and one becomes unable to play (injured/DQ'd) when a 6th player is on the bench haveing been removed from the game just before the injury/DQ (without the clock starting).

Is that 6th TEAM MEMBER on the bench an eligible substitute? NO. Refer to 3.3.3 Sit B. Therefore, he can't come in right now, so forget about him.

Can a team continue with only four because a player became injured when there were no substitutes available? Yes. Refer to 2002-03 NFHS Interp #5.

So why is it so hard for you to understand the proper ruling? Get the injured player to the bench and unless the team takes a time-out to allow him to recover and keep him in the game, the contest will continue 5 v 4 until the next substitution opportunity.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not setting aside a rule, I'm resolving the conflict between two rules by selecting one when you're selecting the other. You've yet to show me why my priority is invalid and yours is valid.

Yep, that is exactly what you are doing and you are selecting the wrong rule. I've told you before, and I just showed you again in this very post that when the rule about five on the court conflicts with the substitution rules that the NFHS has ruled to uphold the substitution restrictions. It's not me picking, it's the NFHS.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've made my choice on common sense and examination of the implications and intents of the rules and have provided a concrete and clear example of why your personal interpratation can't work. I have just as much authority to bring in the 5th player in every case not countered by a specific example...and that is only once case (where the remaining player is injured and the team choose not to take a timeout to keep them in). The rules require that a team play with 5 if the team has 5 players.


Here are to cases that are just as relevant...

Case 3.1.1 NUMBER OF PLAYERS REQUIRED....Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available.

Case 3.2B [designated starter]....A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution.

Exactly why THE RULES AS WRITTEN should be followed and we should not be resorting to "common sense." What one individual thinks is common sense another may find absurd. Again it's not my personal interp, the ruling comes straight from the NFHS.
You don't have "just as much authority" to bring in the fifth player. The NFHS says to apply the substitution provision and make that team member sit out for the time being.
You can cite all of the rules that you wish, but you are falling into the same trap as MTD in believing that five on the court trumps the substitution restrictions. It does not. Not because I say so, but because the NFHS has said so.
I've done my best to piece it together for you and give you the play rulings from analogous situations, but you just refuse to see the light and instead continue to drink MTD's Kool-aid and declare it to be a merlot.