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 :))

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

Re: New rule last year. Well kind of.
 

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.

Re: Re: New rule last year. Well kind of.
 

Works for me, JR.

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

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

Re: Re: Re: New rule last year. Well kind of.
 

The story I heard was that the FED didn't realize until a few years ago that <font color = red>they had mistakenly deleted that language, and that when they did remember, they just put the language and procedure back in.</font>
[/B][/QUOTE]

Works for me, JR.

But, I find this interpretation to be conflicting with the MTD, Sr. philosophy that goes something like: <LI> 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 <b>somewhere</b> 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. :D 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 <b>is</b> also the usual chance that I'm completely wrong again too.

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.

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.