Disqualification Substitutes ...

[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.