Technical Free

[JeffTheRef]

is strong. Nicely done.

[just another ref]

The guy that dunked is likely to be the first one subbed for.

[Nevadaref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Originally posted by xxxxxxxfan

No. The starter who was subbed out to allow the FT shooter into the game may not be subbed back in to the game until the next opportunity to sub after the clock has properly started.

Chuck,
Have to disagree with this. See my more lengthy post above.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Chuck,
Have to disagree with this. See my more lengthy post above.

Saw your lengthy post. Disagree with it. NFHS rule 3-3-4 is pretty explicit: "A player who is replaced...shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement".

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 1st, 2003 at 03:58 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Once it has begun, substitutions are allowed. Only caveat, whoever is removed has to wait until the clock runs before they're allowed to reenter. [/B]

Strictly speaking, this is not correct.

Secondly, I believe that the player who was taken out of the starting line-up can enter the game as a substitute after the technical foul free throws are attempted, but before any time has run off the clock, since he actually has never been in the game yet.

For example:
Let's say that B6 was swapped for designated starter B1 and attempted the first shot, then B7 came in for B2 and attempted the second free throw. Before the ball is given to a player of Team B for the division line throw-in (since there will not be a jump ball to start the game) the coach of Team B now wants B1, B2, and B8 to enter. If they all had properly reported to the scorer prior to the dead ball following the second free throw attempt, I say that B1 and B8 can enter since there are no restrictions upon them as neither has yet participated in the game (even though B1 was originally designated as a starter), but B2 must wait until the next opportunity after the clock has properly started, since he started the game and then was replaced.

If anyone can find a rule of casebook play which contradicts any of this, please let me know.

[/B][/QUOTE]NFHS rule 3-3-4 says that B1 cannot re-enter after being replaced. Has B1 been in the game? According to the scorebook,he most certainly has. He's listed as a designated starter, and the game certainly has started. B1 is NOT erased from the book as being a designated starter in this situation, is he?

Can you find a rule or a casebook play that will contradict rule 3-3-4? If you can, please let us know.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 1st, 2003 at 10:25 AM]

[Hawks Coach]

JR
I would love to see a casebook on this, but I have to agree with Nevada on this. We do not have a substitution here, by rule. We have a change in designated starting player. Nowhere in the substituion rule does it reference that a change in starting players is a substitution.

Rule 3-2
ART. 1 . . . At least 10 minutes before the scheduled starting time, each team shall supply the scorers with the name and number of each team member and designate the five starting players.
ART. 2 . . . After the time limit specified in Article 1, a team is charged with a maximum of one technical foul regardless of how many infractions of the following are committed (See 10-1-1, 2 Penalty):
a. Changing a designated starter, unless necessitated by illness, injury, illegal equipment or apparel, etc., or to attempt a technical-foul free throw.

Additionally, the definition of a sub is one who replaces a player. A player is one who was legally on the court. That was not true in this case. We are not replacing anybody on the court because the game hasn't started.

Rule 4
SECTION 34 PLAYERS/BENCH PERSONNEL/SUBSTITUTES/TEAM MEMBERS
ART. 1 . . . A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.

Rule 3
SECTION 3 SUBSTITUTION
ART. 1 . . . A substitute who desires to enter shall report to the scorers, giving his/her number.
ART. 3 . . . A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court.
ART. 4 . . . A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement.

We don't have the new starter report, the coach changes the list of starters. The new starter does not go to the scorer's table - they are officially a starter now, not a sub. There is nothing in the substitution rules that allows you to have a sub that does not report to the table, and nothing to suggest that a sub goes in for anybody except a player who is legally on the court.
As a final point, this change in starters (not a substitute) was done before the game has started.

Rule 5
SECTION 6 BEGINNING, END OF QUARTER OR EXTRA PERIOD
Each quarter or extra period begins when the ball first becomes live.

The book should not reflect that the original starter (B1) has played - we have changed the list of starters and the game has yet to commence. B1 is no longer listed as a starter. The game starts when the ball is live, which only happens when it is at the disposal of the new starter, B6, who is not, by rule, a sub. Once B6 has shot, B1, who was never a player, can legally sub for B6 unless you have a rule that indicates otherwise.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Once B6 has shot, B1, who was never a player, can legally sub for B6 unless you have a rule that indicates otherwise.

NFHS rule 3-3-4 indicates otherwise . B1 has been replaced. It's very specific language, Coach, with absolutely no "notes" or "exceptions" attached. Also, there is no casebook play detailing something different either. If they wanted to make an exception to this rule for someone replacing a designated starter, this is where they would have let us know.

Rule 3-3-4 "rulz", unless you can find something that will specifically negate it!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 1st, 2003 at 10:24 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

B1 is NOT erased from the book as being a designated starter in this situation, is he?

Yes, I believe that he is erased as a starter in the book and another team member is designated. Afterall, you can only have five designated starters, right? Otherwise a coach could change his starting line-up enough times before the 10 minute mark so that everyone on his team is a designated starter. Then no one would have any clue who is starting, and that wouldn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

The game starts when the ball is live, which only happens when it is at the disposal of the new starter, B6, who is not, by rule, a sub. Once B6 has shot, B1, who was never a player, can legally sub for B6 unless you have a rule that indicates otherwise.

Exactly, I find it tough to penalize for RE-entry when there hasn't even been an initial ENTRY!

As you keenly pointed out, Hawks Coach, the original designated starter has never met the definition of a player, so he cannot by definition be REPLACED, and therefore, since rule 3-3-4 specifically applies to players who are replaced, it does not pertain to him.

In short, since the game hasn't started yet, there is no possible way that he has played.

JR,
What do you think about a coach submitting his roster and designating the five starters 15 minutes prior to the game, but then coming back to the table after seeing his opponents designated starters at the 12 minute mark and making four changes in his starting line-up?

Legal, with no penalities, right? You wouldn't consider the four team members who are no longer starting to have participated in the game yet, right? (Say one of them is wearing a wrong number, you wouldn't T him since he hasn't played.)
This pre-game dunk senario is the same thing. The change in the line-up is simply happening a bit later (closer to the starting time of the game).

[rainmaker]

Jurassic --

I think Hawks' Coach's point, and Nevada's point, is that B6 is not a sub for B1 if B6 comes in before the ball is live. Tthey are saying that he book is changed to reflect a different starting lineup that includes B6 and excludes B1. Thus, after B6 shoots, he can go out, and B1 can enter, since B1 is now the sub, not B6.

My question about that is whether it is legal to change the starting lineup at that late date. Shouldn't this be a technical foul?

[rpirtle]

Julie, I think this might be what you are looking for (3-2-2):

"After the time limit specified in Article 1, a team is charged with a maximum of one technical foul regardless of how many infractions of the following are committed:
a. Changing a designated starter, unless necessitated by illness, injury, illegal equipment or apparel, etc., OR TO ATTEMPT A TECHNICAL-FOUL FREE THROW."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Jurassic --

I think Hawks' Coach's point, and Nevada's point, is that B6 is not a sub for B1 if B6 comes in before the ball is live.

And I'm saying that B6 is replacing B1- simple as that. I'm also saying that if the FED wanted to make any kind of an exception to R3-3-4 to cover pre-game situations, then there would be an "exception", "note" or casebook play attached somewhere to R3-3-4 detailing it. There isn't. I'm also saying that you shouldn't rely on trying to use fuzzily written rules to countermand another rule that is written very clearly.

Jmo.I might be wrong,but I ain't changing it until I see see something from the FED saying otherwise.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

And I'm saying that B6 is replacing B1- simple as that. I'm also saying that if the FED wanted to make any kind of an exception to R3-3-4 to cover pre-game situations, then there would be an "exception", "note" or casebook play attached somewhere to R3-3-4 detailing it. There isn't. I'm also saying that you shouldn't rely on trying to use fuzzily written rules to countermand another rule that is written very clearly.

Jmo.I might be wrong,but I ain't changing it until I see see something from the FED saying otherwise.

JR --

I'm not arguing with you here, just doing the "active listening" thing to try to understand you. I think you're saying that even if the book person changes the starters listed in the book, (which is legal as rpirtle points our as per 3-2-2) and B6 is listed as a starter, that he is still a sub, and B1 can't come back in until the clock has legally started? Are you saying that 3-2-2 is fuzzily written, and probably shouldn't cover pre-game substitution situations?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

I think you're saying that even if the book person changes the starters listed in the book, (which is legal as rpirtle points our as per 3-2-2) and B6 is listed as a starter, that he is still a sub, and B1 can't come back in until the clock has legally started? Are you saying that 3-2-2 is fuzzily written, and probably shouldn't cover pre-game substitution situations?
[/B][/QUOTE]I am saying that B1 was originally listed as a starter on the official scoring sheet. B1 then was subsequently replaced by B6. That is legal by the content of rule 3-3-2. Note that R3-3-2 uses the exact same terminology as R3-3-4-i.e. someone is being "replaced", as in B6 replacing B1. After B1 has been replaced, B1 now has to comply with the provisions of R3-4-4, and can't re-enter the game before the clock has started again. I am saying that both these rules(R3-3-2&4) are clearly written, and that there no exceptions to them noted in the rules or case books. Imo, I think that Nevada is trying to apply a completely different rule,which is fuzzily written,but which isn't really germane to this particular situation.

As Alex Hawkins said "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it".

[Hawks Coach]

JR
You claim that 3-3-2 uses the word replace - it does not in any part of that article. It refers to changing a designated starter, it never refers to changing a player or replacing a player or a starter. Substitutions are a separate article and no reference to 3-2-2 is made in the 3-3-3 or 3-3-4.

In 3-3-2 2c/d/e, the word player is used with respect to having the numbers in the book correct for players. And we know that this language is very specific, because it only applies to players (there is no penalty for bench personnel having wrong numbers or duplicate numbers). I would argue that the use of the word player in 3-3-4 is similarly careful - it applies only to players not to a non-player.

In 2a, where the refernce to changing a starter, the word player is studiously avoided. There is nothing in the definition of a player that would make a designated starter a player until the ball is live. So I cannot see how you can apply to non-players language that is carefully worded to apply only to players. The book does not support it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
JR
You claim that 3-3-2 uses the word replace - it does not in any part of that article. It refers to changing a designated starter, it never refers to changing a player or replacing a player or a starter. Substitutions are a separate article and no reference to 3-2-2 is made in the 3-3-3 or 3-3-4.

Say what?

Rule 3-3-2- direct quote- "The entering substitute shall not replace a designated jumper or free thrower except as in 8-2 and 3.If the substitute enters to replace a player who must jump or attempt a free throw, then he/she shall withdraw until the next opportunity to substitute"! The word "replace" is used twice in this rule! In this sitch,the designated starter B1 is being replaced by B6 as the free thrower, by the clear language above. Rule 3-3-4 now tells you how to handle a replaced player(B1) who wants to sub back in again-- direct quote from the rule- "A player who has been replaced....shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been properly started following his/her replacement.". That rule directly uses the verbiage "replace" and "replacement" also, and it tells you exactly when the next legal opportunity to substitute will take place- i.e. after the clock has started.

I think that this one is about as clear as any rule that the FED has ever written!