clarification of substitution rule

[rwest]

We dropped them at the end of last year. We were even instructed to take off the IAABO patch. We also don't wear the GHSA patch anymore. GA decided to go patchless, except the American flag. That's optionally. We also only had one test this year. We got rid of Part I and Part II. GHSA came up with the test themselves.



[Edited by rwest on Dec 6th, 2004 at 03:56 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rwest
We dropped them at the end of last year. We were even instructed to take off the IAABO patch. We also don't wear the GHSA patch anymore. GA decided to go patchless, except the American flag. That's optionally. We also only had one test this year. We got rid of Part I and Part II. GHSA came up with the test themselves.

Thanks for the info. i was wondering if the new IAABO mechanics were a part of your problem, but we can get rid of that idea. I don't have a clue why IAABO decided all of a sudden to issue their own mechanics this year.Confusing as hell.

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by Junker
Thanks Chuck, I must have skimmed through it quickly. Don't tell my students since I pound reading things carefully into their heads daily.

Ha Ha. Junker, in my experience, pounding things into kids heads just seems to cause brain damage.

Coach Arsenault at Grinnell has been incredibly generous with his time and ideas and his concern about fun and increased participation seem very genuine. He has also won quite a few games this way. The number of schools running or considering this system seems to grow daily.

I don't know of any D1 schools doing this, but I do know that a few previously successful coaches have opted to move to this system. After 30 years at University of Redlands, Coach Gary Smith adopted this system last year. I'm sure they don't have the same disparity of talent as a large D1, but they certainly have better athletes than the 3-and-something team that prompted Grinnell to go this route.

By the way, one of the ESPN's is planning to televise a Grinnell game sometime in February.

[Adam]

Originally posted by bebanovich I am really not trying to be confrontational but I'm hoping to be convinced intellectually so I can sleep in peace. Maybe the answer is that the spirit of the rule is immaterial in this case but I can't yet except that this example is actually within the spirit of the rule. What am I missing?

I'd say that the coach wouldn't be violating the spirit of the rule any more than you would be by using the substitution rule that way.
If his players are tired, and they've got to figure out a defensive match-up every 60 seconds, knowing who the new player are on the court is necessary regardless of whether they're playing a zone defense.
Second of all, the rule clearly states that they may request a matchup. We can't read the coach's mind about when or if he plans on switching to a man-to-man defense.

Question, do you play 10 or 15 players?

[bebanovich]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

I'd say that the coach wouldn't be violating the spirit of the rule any more than you would be by using the substitution rule that way.

Question, do you play 10 or 15 players?

We play 10 only because we have a new small school and are only in the second year of trying to build a program. Last year we had only 6, so 10 still seems like a luxury to me.

In terms of the spirit of the rule . . . I have heard this type of reaction before, but I really don't understand it. I have also heard of coaches who think it's a travesty. I secretly love this reaction from coaches, although I have never faced it first-hand. The coaches I have gone against have been very complimentary and inevitably want to talk more about it after the game.

It seems to me that there are many reasons for allowing free substitutions in basketball but I consider tha main ones to be creating favorable match-ups on the floor and keeping players rested enough to remain effective. This is exactly what we are doing but we simply have a different idea about what it means for a player to remain rested enough to remain effective.

All coaches talk about wanting 100% from their players at all times - too many coaches (obviously not math teachers) want 110%! Without even being conscious of it, all players have learned to coast when they can to preserve energy. Our system tries to eliminate this coasting and really create a 100% effort all the time. The players find it very liberating.

I don't understand how this violates the spiirt of the substitution rules. Pushing them to the extreme, perhaps, but for the exact same reasons that they were intended. To me, that is the definition of innovation not violation.

Please keep in mind that I have already accepted the reality of the defensive line-up rule, but I still don't think it's analogous to our use of the substitution rule.