Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Thanks for the research into this situation. Do all of us have the same access to Mary Struckhoff, NFHS Assistant Director, Basketball Rules Editor, National Interpreter, as you have, or do you have to be a state interpreter, or have a similar role? I would love to simply email her every time I have a question about a NFHS interpretation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
So if I stated that this new case play addresses THE SPECIFIC SITUATION when a player is FOULED, INJURED, AND DUE FTs and states that when all of those criteria are met that then and only then may an otherwise ineligible substitute return immediately and attempt those FTs, would I be correct? In other words what the NFHS just wrote is a very specific ruling which we cannot expand to any other situation no matter what common elements they may share.
|
Nevadaref: I was wondering the same thing. Members of my local board have always been taught that "you have to sit a tick, but you don't have to play a tick". Does that now change to "you have to sit a tick, but you don't have to play a tick; unless there's a "foul, injury, due free throws" situation", or to, "you have to sit a tick, but you don't have to play a tick; unless there's a playing with less than five players when a healthy, non disqualified player is sitting on the bench" situation?
Let's say Team A, which only started the game with nine players (it's influenza season), due to three disqualifications (Team A has been pressing, and fouling, the entire game), is down to six players. After a foul is called on A-3 for pushing B-1, Team A's eighth foul of the second half, B-1 is given a one and one opportunity. A-6 reports as a substitute, and is legally beckoned to replace A-5. A-5 leaves the floor and sits down on Team A's bench, before B-1 takes his, or her, free throw. During the free throw, which hits the front of the rim, and bounces high in the air, before going in, A-1 pushes B-2, committing his, or her, fifth foul, and is disqualified. The official reports the disqualification to the table, coach, and player, and A-1 leaves the floor and sits on Team A's bench. This being a false multiple foul situation, the official clears the lane so that B-1 may attempt his, or her second warranted free throw. Keep in mind that the clock has never started, or, in other words, it never "ticked". Coach of Team A realizes that he, or she, now has only four players on the floor, and wants to replace the disqualified A-1, with substitute A-5, who has not been on the bench a "tick".
What does the official do? Does playing the game with five players rule always "trump" the "sitting a tick" rule? Does this specific case book situation of a "foul, injury, due free throws" (NFHS 2008-09 Casebook 8.2 Situation B) also cover my situation? I would like this specific casebook play used as a citation to cover all situations in which a team may be forced to play with less than five players when a healthy, non disqualified player is sitting on the bench, waiting to "sit a tick". A generalization of this casebook play would certainly make it easier for the official to make decisions regarding playing with five players, or less, but at this point, I would hesitate to do that, and, at best, it's one of those "things that make you go hmm".
"Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Sitting out a tick is neither sitting nor is it a tick. Discuss."
