Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
[BThe NF rule book is not geared to handle these multiple game, multiple team, total quarters of play eligibility issues because you don't have to deal with them as referees in a single game. And NF does not impose these total quarters of play limits, states do. This causes problems when reconciling a state eligibility provision with the NF rulebook that does not recognize these provisions. Coaches have to deal with balancing both sets of rules, and this coach handled it the way I would. I wouldn't tell my player to go hide or that she couldn't stay with the team in case the ref would force her to play.
Most importantly, by making this girl play you are punishing a varsity player for a JV coach's decision to allow her to stay with her team after her available quarters play had ended. Do you really think that is in the spirit of the NFHS rules? I think your reading of the rule book needs to be tempered with some perspective of what is happening here, and the fact that the rulebook does not account for state policies of this nature. [/B]
|
Great summation and logic,Coach.I agree with what you are saying above.The problem still is,though,that you've still got fairly specific language in the rule book to overcome.I think that the spirit of the rule was to make sure that everybody on the bench would be accorded an opportunity to play in short-handed situations.That's not really relevant in this situation,and the coach certainly isn't gaining any advantage by not playing the kid.
Maybe the best way is to get both coaches together,go over the situation,and try and get an agreement with them that it's OK to go with four players in this specific case.What the official doesn't want to get into is a situation where he/she makes a ruling that the other coach will want to protest in some way after the game(yes,I know that the FED theoretically doesn't allow protests).