Disqualification Substitutes ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The 2024-25 interpretation definitely does not say anything about BEFORE.

Agree,

Nor does it say that the other substitutes must wait until AFTER the replacement is made.

Substitution: 3-3-1-C: Note: When a player is disqualified or directed to leave the game, both teams may substitute up until it is time to put the ball in play.

[Raymond]

But you specifically said that IAABO or Connecticut, some of your posting can get convoluted so I don't remember which one, explicitly stated other subs could come in before the disqualified player is replaced.

So far the only thing you have cited is a 2004 interpretation. Did IAABO/Connecticut reissue that interpretation?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

But you specifically said that IAABO or Connecticut, some of your posting can get convoluted so I don't remember which one, explicitly stated other subs could come in before the disqualified player is replaced. So far the only thing you have cited is a 2004 interpretation. Did IAABO/Connecticut reissue that interpretation?

... and the Substitution: 3-3-1-C: Note citation.

Substitution: 3-3-1-C: Note: When a player is disqualified or directed to leave the game, both teams may substitute up until it is time to put the ball in play.

IAABO International told us to let them all in on our 2024-25 Refresher Exam.

26) B-1 fouls A-1, committing their fifth personal foul. While waiting for B-1’s replacement, A-6 and A-7 approach the table to enter the game. The official denies their entry, stating that A-6 and A-7 must wait and enter with B-1’s replacement. Was the official correct?

IAABO answer is "No". Reference cited for this question is 3-3-1-C.

I challenged this answer up to the state level and was told the IAABO answer was correct as is, again citing 3-3-1-C.

On the IAABO International level, there was an IAABO representative (who edits our IAABO Refresher Exams questions and answers) on the NFHS 2024-25 rules committee.

My most recent activity was in regard to our Connecticut state interpreter reinforcing the interpretation to let them all in because so many of us Connecticut veterans got this question wrong, including me.

Play #4: In the 4th quarter, A2 is called for their 5th personal foul
and is disqualified from the game. B6 and B7 were already at the
table when the foul was called. After the official beckons A6 in to
replace A2, they tell B6 and B7 they must remain at the table until
after the first free throw. Is the official, correct?
Answer: No, the official is not correct. If a disqualified player
needs to be replaced, this is an opportunity for both teams to
substitute and any player may enter the game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... and the Substitution: 3-3-1-C: Note citation.

Substitution: 3-3-1-C: Note: When a player is disqualified or directed to leave the game, both teams may substitute up until it is time to put the ball in play.

IAABO International told us to let them all in on our 2024-25 Refresher Exam.

26) B-1 fouls A-1, committing their fifth personal foul. While waiting for B-1’s replacement, A-6 and A-7 approach the table to enter the game. The official denies their entry, stating that A-6 and A-7 must wait and enter with B-1’s replacement. Was the official correct?

IAABO answer is "No". Reference cited for this question is 3-3-1-C.

I challenged this answer up to the state level and was told the IAABO answer was correct as is, again citing 3-3-1-C.

On the IAABO International level, there was an IAABO representative (who edits our IAABO Refresher Exams questions and answers) on the NFHS 2024-25 rules committee.

My most recent activity was in regard to our Connecticut state interpreter reinforcing the interpretation to let them all in because so many of us Connecticut veterans got this question wrong, including me.

Play #4: In the 4th quarter, A2 is called for their 5th personal foul
and is disqualified from the game. B6 and B7 were already at the
table when the foul was called. After the official beckons A6 in to
replace A2, they tell B6 and B7 they must remain at the table until
after the first free throw. Is the official, correct?
Answer: No, the official is not correct. If a disqualified player
needs to be replaced, this is an opportunity for both teams to
substitute and any player may enter the game.

Those facts and the timing of the subs make the two plays not comparable. A referee could wait until after replacement is at the table to let the subs in and would be wrong according to the test question, but right according to the newsletter play #4. No one should get play #4 wrong -- it has never been in doubt. THe test question is the controversial ine.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Those facts and the timing of the subs make the two plays not comparable. A referee could wait until after replacement is at the table to let the subs in and would be wrong according to the test question, but right according to the newsletter play #4. No one should get play #4 wrong -- it has never been in doubt. The test question is the controversial one.

"Not comparable": "At the table" versus "approaching the table".

Interesting point.

Could somebody please post a current NFHS rule citation for holding some, or all, other substitutes until the replacement it made.

It doesn't exist now, but I would certainly welcome a casebook play or annual interpretation from NFHS describing substitutions during a replacement period that will not be followed by any free throws.

For now, I'm hanging my hat on this:

Substitution: 3-3-1-C: Note: When a player is disqualified or directed to leave the game, both teams may substitute up until it is time to put the ball in play.

It's says "up until", not "when it's time to put the ball in play".

Since starting this thread I've taken a hundred and eighty degree turn and I'm getting dizzy.

[Raymond]

You are making distinctions that are not material to the conversation.

"Up until" instead of "when" doesn't matter. Free throw or throw-in does not matter. We are discussing what can happen before the ball becomes live again.

The only pertinent question is are subs allowed before the replacement for the disqualified player?

That's it. That's the question. That's the discussion.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You are making distinctions that are not material to the conversation.

"Up until" instead of "when" doesn't matter. Free throw or throw-in does not matter. We are discussing what can happen before the ball becomes live again.

The only pertinent question is are subs allowed before the replacement for the disqualified player?

That's it. That's the question. That's the discussion.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Agreed. During the Replacement Interval, (it's a defined term) or only after, but before the ball is about to become live (or whatever the specific wording is for nay sub situation.)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The only pertinent question is are subs allowed before the replacement for the disqualified player?

Agree 100% but still need an answer to your well worded question and also a NFHS rule citation to support the answer.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100% but still need an answer to your well worded question and also a NFHS rule citation to support the answer.

Other than the test question, we don't have one. Still.

For me, I am waiting until the replacement gets to (or at least near) the table, to beckon in the other players. What if Coach B (with the regular sub) decides not to sub based on the replacement player?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What if Coach B (with the regular sub) decides not to sub based on the replacement player?

Similar to my thought.

Replacement player is extremely tall while the disqualified player was extremely short.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Replacement player is extremely tall while the disqualified player was extremely short.

Of course, the "regular substitute" doesn't have to play, but can substituted for, and then both the "regular substitute" and the player he originally substituted for have to "sit a tick".

The game then becomes a "chess match" between opposing coaches, "I'll sacrifice my rook, because you sacrificed your bishop".

[Raymond]

Or just don't allow any other subs until the replacement for the disqualified player, then you don't have to worry about chess moves.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Or just don't allow any other subs until the replacement for the disqualified player, then you don't have to worry about chess moves.

Whether an actual rule, or simply a "best practice", this was probably the original purpose and intent, along with ensuring that the replacement of the disqualified player was actually accomplished in a timely manner.

Starting over forty years ago we were locally taught that no other substitutes and no timeouts granted until the disqualified player is replaced, but I cannot find a "modern" rule citation for the substitute part of this ancient "best practice".

Can anybody find such?

[bucky]

At one point, Billy mentioned denying subs. A recent event, mini fight, our crew experienced involved a lot of moving pieces. There were FTs, ejections, subs, crowd members involved, game mgmt, reporting to the scorer a bunch of details, explanations to coaches, refs huddling, etc. We pumped the breaks to sort it all out before allowing any subs. We performed the tasks one at a time, very slowly, to ensure that we were following proper procedures. My point is that, at least for me, if there is a lot for my brain to process, then I will absolutely deny a sub until my, or our, thoughts are clear on what to do. There may be times when it is certainly OK to tell a sub to "wait a sec" in order to ensure proper protocols are met. If some coach/observer yells at me for denying a sub because there is no specific rule to do so, I will cite rule 2 section 3 all day long.

Lastly, regarding the plays discussed, I can easily see where only allowing the DQd sub first, quickly followed by the others would be warranted. Coaches/players/subs do all kinds of things quickly and again, citing my previous paragraph, things can get out of order quickly so slowing things down is perfectly acceptable IMO.

2 cents...

[bucky]

Also, I did not see (just browsed really) if anyone submitted the below info in regards to the original post. It was taken from https://www.scribd.com/document/7940...change-summary.


3-3-1c Substitution - When a player is disqualified or directed to leave the game, both teams may substitute up until it is time to put the ball in play.

RATIONALE: The current wording makes it sound like the substitutes for the other team had to have already reported before the required substitution...that is not the common practice among most all officials and not, the "spirit and intent" of that rule. This editorial change would simply clarify that IF a player has to be replaced, either because of being disqualified or some other rule infraction, that the opposing team can substitute up until it is time to restart the game.