[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

No you haven't. You've only cited one such case...where the 5th player is the injured player...you're extrapolating to a new case.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

The problem with your entire premise is that 3.3.3B is in a section titled illegal entry....not a section on subtitution. It's conclusion clearly notes that it is not a correctable error and their is no provision for a penalty for the illegal entry. You're simply reading a meaning into the case that is not the point of the case.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Again. 3.3.3B is not talking about who is or is not an eligible sub. It's sole point is that a player who enters illegally is legal when the ball becomes live. Period.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I agree in that case....as demonstated in Sit. 5. But that is not the case we're talking about. It doesn't define that a 6th player is unavailable....there were only 5 players to start.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

You have shown no such thing....only that the specific injured player can't return. It makes no mention or even implication regarding other situations. In fact, I cited a case that says to ignore the starter/substitution rules in the event of a subsequent injury.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Common sense is the tool used to understand what is written, not in place of it. Try it out. Extend your understanding of the NFHS rule to see if it makes sense. If it leads to an absurd result, you may wish to revisit what you think is being said. Your interpretation can lead to in impassible situation. As a result, it is ,at a mimumum, suspect.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I'm still waiting for the citation that supports your claim any stronger than the one I've cited that says to ignore the substitution rule when there is an unforseeable injury that complicates the situation.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

And I've shown you equally valid citations and have even give you examples where your ruling falls apart.