Substitutions

[BillyMac]

A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game, shall not re-enter (with rare exceptions) before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his, or her, replacement. In other words, a player who has been replaced must sit a tick of the clock, however, a player doesn’t have to play a tick of the clock.

[Nevadaref]

What the two replies above have stated is correct for NFHS rules. You will find that the NBA requirement is different, so don't get confused if you watch a bunch of those games.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What the two replies above have stated is correct for NFHS rules. You will find that the NBA requirement is different, so don't get confused if you watch a bunch of those games.

NBA is opposite...must play a tic...not sit a tic...UNLESS there's a change of possession, timeout, personal/technical foul, or administration of infection control rule (blood).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game, shall not re-enter (with rare exceptions) before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his, or her, replacement.

Bonus question: What's the "rare exception"?

Correct answer earns a "major award":

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Bonus question: What's the "rare exception"?

Correct answer earns a "major award":

If A6 has just come out of the game, and A1 commits a foul before the clock runs, and it is A1's 5th foul, and if A has no other substitutes available, I believe A6 could return.

Also, if A6 was fouled (common foul), came out, the ensuing throw-in was kicked so the clock never started, and then the table notifies that the previous foul was B's 7th (not 6th), A6 would return to shoot the one-and-one.

[Nevadaref]

Correctable error is the only exception.
The case book play authored by MTD a few years ago involving an injury is incorrect.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correctable error is the only exception.
The case book play authored by MTD a few years ago involving an injury is incorrect.

No just wait a gol darn minute! NFHS Basketball Rules Casebook Play 8.2 Situation B is correct. And I take great pride is saying that.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. It is past my bed time so I am going to bed now. Good night all!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS Basketball Rules Casebook Play 8.2 Situation B

8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s
first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces
B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for
A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3
in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to
immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order
to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still
not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game
and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced
since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s
first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces
B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for
A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3
in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to
immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order
to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still
not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game
and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced
since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

Billy, there's one additional citation to this play in this year's case book...Rule 2-3. With the addition of the Elastic Clause it's possible the NF powers that be have decided they don't want a team playing with fewer than five players if there's a substitute available who is not injured and/or disqualified.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

If A6 has just come out of the game, and A1 commits a foul before the clock runs, and it is A1's 5th foul, and if A has no other substitutes available, I believe A6 could return.

Correct. The sub rule is, at least in part, to prevent a coach from shuttling players in/out over and over.

There is another rule that requires 5 players if 5 are available.

The two rules are in conflict. The resolution is that once only 5 are available, the issue being address by the sub rule is moot....so 5 play.

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

Also, if A6 was fouled (common foul), came out, the ensuing throw-in was kicked so the clock never started, and then the table notifies that the previous foul was B's 7th (not 6th), A6 would return to shoot the one-and-one.

Again, correct. There is no rule that allows a player other than A6 to shoot the FTs if A6 is not disqualified and is not injured. Again, two rules are in conflict, and the right resolution of the conflict is to put A6 back in to shoot.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Correct. The sub rule is, at least in part, to prevent a coach from shuttling players in/out over and over.

There is another rule that requires 5 players if 5 are available.

The two rules are on conflict. The resolution is that once only 5 are available, the issue being address by the sub rule is moot....so 5 play.



Again, correct. There is no rule that allows a player other than A6 to shoot the FTs if A6 is not disqualified and is not injured. Again, two rules are in conflict, and the right resolution of the conflict is to put A6 back in to shoot.

Incorrect ruling and reasoning in part 1 & correct ruling, but for the wrong reason in part 2. The NFHS has previous interpretations on both of these situations. Don't get sucked into the MTD thinking that was blindly backed by Mary "no-clue-what-the-rules-are". Consult the old rulings issued by the people who understood the principles and reasons behind the NFHS rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Incorrect ruling and reasoning in part 1 & correct ruling, but for the wrong reason in part 2. The NFHS has previous interpretations on both of these situations. Don't get sucked into the MTD thinking that was blindly backed by Mary "no-clue-what-the-rules-are". Consult the old rulings issued by the people who understood the principles and reasons behind the NFHS rules.

MTD didn't influence me but he is one smart guy! It is the only thing that makes sense with the rules we have. I thought that long before MTD's efforts. You have to consider the purpose of the sit-a-tick rule. It was never intended to cause a team to play with 4 players when a 5th is available. It was always to prevent coaches from manipulating the dead ball time by shuttling players in and out repeatedly.

And what would be your reason in the 2nd part?

[Nevadaref]

The second one is a correctable error. Had the officials been given the proper information, the substitute would not have been permitted to replace the designated FT shooter. That is the rule. Barring the error, that individual would have remained in the contest to attempt the FTs.

The difference between this and MTD's play is that the team and officials had all of the proper info in MTD's situation, yet freely chose to remove a player and make him ineligible until the next substitution opportunity. If someone fouls out or gets hurt or ill before that time, it's tough luck. They temporarily play with four until they have an eligible substitute. Check the past interp involving an asthma attack. It is unfortunate that Mary bought MTD's crying about having five players. We all know that she had a poor understanding of the rules.

The team needs to accept the risk that comes with utilizing its last or only sub. They don't get a free pass from the rules because they don't have reasonable depth on the bench.

I have some more example for you to consider. First, I'll comment on a genral principle that whenever a rule makes a team member ineligible, that individual cannot enter. It doesn't matter what rule it is. That person simply can't play. We don't set these rules aside. Sadly that is what MTD wants to do.
What do you say about these:
In all cases Player A5 fouls out and A6 is the only team member on the bench.
1. A6 was just removed for bleeding and is still bleeding.
2. A6 fouled out earlier.
3. A6 is wearing an illegal undershirt and refuses to remove it.
4. A6 has a hard splint on his hand.
5. A6 was just directed to leave the game due to not having his shirt tucked in and has not sat a tick.
6. A6 was subbed out and has not say a tick.

Would you permit any of these to return? If so, why are you willing to set aside one or some rules, but not others?

To me all of these team members are ineligible to participate at this time.