I think you're a little older than I am, but I remember reporting the number of the player I was going in for when I played in the late 80s and early 90s. I started officiating, without really knowing what I was doing, in the '92-93 season. I honestly have no idea if it was the rule then, but by the time I picked it up seriously around 2000, I'm pretty sure it had gone the way of the "raise your hand when you foul" rule.

Did the NFHS comment on their reasoning for dropping the requirement?

I was thinking about that old rule during this conversation, but I was thinking that 3-3-4 becomes virtually impossible to enforce in the OP now that the rule has been dropped. I wonder if that was intentional?

There is no rule stating that the switch takes place at the end of the time-out. In fact, the rule which we do have states that it takes place when the sub enters the court. That's all we need to know. It doesn't matter where the five players are standing. If the entering sub steps into the court, then a change has occurred. If not, then it happens when the kid does step in.

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.

Last comment for me...I think. A6 became a player, you have acknowledged. The other end of the rule says the other player became bench personnel the moment A6 became a player. One of A1-5 became bench personnel. I guess I don't understand why it bothers you to say "coach, somebody has to come out because when A6 became a player somebody became bench personnel. The coach sent A6 in for somebody, didn't pull him back, let him enter and go to end line throw in area. I'd say coach it's too late to simply pull him back. I don't think coach would give you hard time. If he did over this there would likely be other issues. The rule clearly says somebody becomes bench personnel when A6 becomes a player. Take care.

I agree with this post and would handle the situation this way.

I'd report the timeout and let the team sort out which 5 they wanted on the floor.

I've got bigger fish to fry, to be honest.

The one change to this is that he can withdraw A6 for A7, but will still have to withdraw someone from A1-A5.

Me too. This is all so silly.

I'm wayyyyy late to the party here, but my question arising from this thread isn't so much about the "who's coming out" aspect. It's about the reporting aspect.

What I've learned from this is that something most officials on our board do is probably something we shouldn't be doing:
Sub is at the table, team calls timeout. Official heads to the reporting area, reports the timeout, instructs timer to start the clock, says "Sub(s), you're good" and beckons, then heads to the timeout position and the rest is history.

I'm getting the impression this isn't the best idea. What do you guys do? Report the timeout, ignore the sub at the table, then just see what happens when the timeout is over? Is the theory that this kid has already "reported," and since we're now in a TO, he won't need to be beckoned when play resumes?

How does that approach eliminate the possibility of the OP, when the sub never enters the court following the TO and the opposing coach takes issue? Do we make the sub report before the warning horn?

I can get behind this and will start doing this tonight, I just want to make sure I'm understanding it properly.

What we were talking about at this point was a substitute reporting, being beckoned, entering, and walking to the end line for an end line throw in. Then the coach changing his mind. There is no timeout involved.

Personally, I do the part in bold. If I see a kid report after the first horn, I won't let them in. That's about all for me. Others may do things differently.

If the coach sends a sub in and at this point there are 6 players on the court and the coach changes his mind and says oops i want that sub back on the bench I'm ok with that. If a player has walked off the court and the coach changes his mind, then the sub can leave but the player that stepped off has to wait and a new player must be made available.

1. By definition there cannot ever be six players for one team. Five is the maximum.
2. You are making up your own rule for the player departing. The NFHS rule has been quoted several times in this thread. Your thinking as an official is just pathetic.

Do you also allow the teams to start whomever they wish despite what was submitted at the ten minute mark?

Do you also take the same position for intermissions? You don't care which five were in the game at the end of the previous quarter even though the NFHS recently instructed officials to pay attention to this!?!?

You are setting a poor example for the officials you assign.

Do you check the book at halftime and ensure those who were in the game at halftime return to start the second half?

I'm willing to bet scorers don't all track that. In 29 years I've never once seen a team argue that subs were improper after halftime.

I have denied subs entry, but those are ones who come to the table after a warning horn OR try to reenter without sitting a tick.

There is no rule regarding wishing forum members good luck. :)

What are you actually asking here?

If I am aware of the situation or am made aware by the scorer, I would enforce the rule. For example, if I know that a certain player was in the game because he made a buzzer beater at the end of the previous quarter or fouled near the horn, I look to see if that kid starts the next quarter unless properly substituted.

How do you know if he's been properly substituted? A team representative merely has to tell the scorer -- and this may happen when I'm not looking.

Do you actually go over and ask the scorer? As the R, I'm going to the division line and one of the Us is retrieving a ball for me.

I have no problem with the rule -- I just have a problem with the feasibility of enforcing it without looking like an OOO.

This thread has run its course and devolved into personal attacks enough times that it is now closed.

Say goodnight Gracie