The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 27, 2004, 08:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 156
What does it mean in 3-3-1.e.

It states "A captain may request a defensive match-up if three or more substitutes from the same team enter during an opportunity to substitute."

I've never heard of this (except with little kids where the coach's line up the players in front of each other )
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 27, 2004, 08:44pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,472
Lightbulb New rule last year. Well kind of.

This was an old rule that was scratched. Then they brought it back last year as a new rule. Not sure when they originally got rid of it. I am sure JR can tell us. I have yet to have this rule implemented (this rule was not in place when I first started). Maybe this season will be the first.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 27, 2004, 09:08pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Re: New rule last year. Well kind of.

Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
This was an old rule that was scratched. Then they brought it back last year as a new rule. Not sure when they originally got rid of it. I am sure JR can tell us. I have yet to have this rule implemented (this rule was not in place when I first started). Maybe this season will be the first.

This one was kind of a weird one. I know that it was in the rulebook about 20/30 years ago with similar language, and they even had a casebook play on it back then detailing the procedure(line 'em up like a jump ball in the closest circle to where the throw-in/FT was). I don't think that they ever scratched the rule officially. It just seemed to disappear from the book about the same time that we went from actual jump balls to the AP. The story I heard was that the FED didn't realize until a few years ago that they had mistakenly deleted that language, and that when they did remember, they just put the language and procedure back in. I think that during that period when the language was gone, a lot of trainers across the country were still telling their guys to honor a request for a line-up if 3 or more subs from one team came in- even though the language had disappeared.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 27, 2004, 09:19pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Arrow Re: Re: New rule last year. Well kind of.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
This was an old rule that was scratched. Then they brought it back last year as a new rule. Not sure when they originally got rid of it. I am sure JR can tell us. I have yet to have this rule implemented (this rule was not in place when I first started). Maybe this season will be the first.

This one was kind of a weird one. I know that it was in the rulebook about 20/30 years ago with similar language, and they even had a casebook play on it back then detailing the procedure(line 'em up like a jump ball in the closest circle to where the throw-in/FT was). I don't think that they ever scratched the rule officially. It just seemed to disappear from the book about the same time that we went from actual jump balls to the AP. The story I heard was that the FED didn't realize until a few years ago that they had mistakenly deleted that language, and that when they did remember, they just put the language and procedure back in. I think that during that period when the language was gone, a lot of trainers across the country were still telling their guys to honor a request for a line-up if 3 or more subs from one team came in- even though the language had disappeared.

Works for me, JR.

But, I find this interpretation to be conflicting with the MTD, Sr. philosophy that goes something like:
  • If a rule is not specifically deleted, then the rule remains alive.

    Perhaps there is a Fed philosophy that the Fed has forgotten.
    mick



  • Reply With Quote
      #5 (permalink)  
    Old Mon Sep 27, 2004, 09:37pm
    In Memoriam
     
    Join Date: Aug 2001
    Location: Hell
    Posts: 20,211
    Re: Re: Re: New rule last year. Well kind of.

    Quote:
    Originally posted by mick
    [/B]
    The story I heard was that the FED didn't realize until a few years ago that they had mistakenly deleted that language, and that when they did remember, they just put the language and procedure back in.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    Works for me, JR.

    But, I find this interpretation to be conflicting with the MTD, Sr. philosophy that goes something like:
  • If a rule is not specifically deleted, then the rule remains alive.

    Perhaps there is a Fed philosophy that the Fed has forgotten.
    [/B][/QUOTE]Well, my own philosophy is that if I can't find a rule somewhere in the book(s), then I can't call it. For some reason, coaches just don't seem to want to accept me telling them that a rule really does exist, but it's in a briefcase up in my attic. All I know about this one is that the rule was in the book years ago, seemed to be deleted without anybody making an announcement that it really was deleted, and it then came back with just about the original language.

    Of course, there is also the usual chance that I'm completely wrong again too.
  • Reply With Quote
      #6 (permalink)  
    Old Mon Sep 27, 2004, 11:28pm
    Adam's Avatar
    Keeper of the HAMMER
     
    Join Date: Jan 2003
    Location: MST
    Posts: 27,190
    I could have swore this was in the rule book when I first read it (would have been around the '93-'94 season). Or was it the case book? Oh well, I've never had to use it at any level; although I've had a few games where the players would have benefited from it.
    __________________
    Sprinkles are for winners.
    Reply With Quote
      #7 (permalink)  
    Old Tue Sep 28, 2004, 02:57am
    Official Forum Member
     
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Posts: 15,003
    It didn't disappear so long ago.
    The rule was in the books when I first started back in 97-98. Unfortunately, I threw out my old books when I left the DC area, so I can't prove it, but someone else who has those books could.
    Reply With Quote
    Reply

    Bookmarks


    Posting Rules
    You may not post new threads
    You may not post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is On
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On



    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41pm.



    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1