Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat
If the sub Fails to report who he is going in for the case play stands for the proposition that you assume the worst for his team. He failed to report so we are directed to assume A3 was the player coming out. Bench personnel at time of T. I agree fights are rare but I think the play tells us what to do if we don't know who sub was coming in for.
In the other example I just tell the coach somebody, one of A1-5, has to come out because the sub became a player when he legally entered the Court. At that moment one of those became bench personnel. I don't care who, but one needs to sit a tic. It was his player that didn't say who he was subbing for. I don't think a coach would make a big deal out of this. I think he'd take one of them out without an issue.
If you allow A6 to go back out instead of one of the other players I think you are changing the rule saying that he became a player when he entered and the other player became bench personnel. You are saying he becomes a player when one of A1-5 leaves court and only when one of them leaves court do they become bench personnel.
As you said earlier, it's theoretical really.
|
No, I'm acknowledging that A6 became a player when he came onto the court. I'm just saying we have no way of enforcing 3-3-4 if we don't know who he was supposed to replace. I have no interest in enforcing a rule that was rendered unenforceable by the NFHS change many years ago.
My hypothetical case is meant to determine how committed you are to the rule. Nevadaref is clear that he would call a T if the coach did not comply. He has earned himself a reputation where such a T would likely not affect him. I can't say the same. If I could justify it by rule, I would do it, but I can't get there.