clarification of substitution rule

[bebanovich]

You're not missing anything. The answer is that the spirit of the rule is ultimately immaterial in this case. It's a procedural type rule that has got nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage or anything like that. It's the same type of rule as , say, substitution- it simply tells you how and when. We don't get to pick out the rules that we like or dislike; we just call the ones that we have to call- like this one. If we did get to pick-and choose, I doubt that the rule allowing coaches to call time-outs would be around very long, for one example.

OK. That tears it. Thanks Jurassic Referee, that's an answer that's easier for me to live with. I still think that a better comparison might be using the 30 seconds as a timeout when a player is DQ'd. I know that steps have been taken to discourage this practice because it really was not the original intent of the rule (wasn't this a recent point of emphasis?).

Maybe if this system really catches on and isn't treated as a travesty, we might see similar tweaks down the road. I can only hope.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by bebanovich

OK. That tears it. Thanks Jurassic Referee, that's an answer that's easier for me to live with. I still think that a better comparison might be using the 30 seconds as a timeout when a player is DQ'd. I know that steps have been taken to discourage this practice because it really was not the original intent of the rule (wasn't this a recent point of emphasis?).

Maybe if this system really catches on and isn't treated as a travesty, we might see similar tweaks down the road. I can only hope.

Coach,
I haven't heard of any "steps" to discourage this out my way.

I don't mind this practice at all. If a coach wants to use the 30 seconds to replace a DQ'd player...no problem.
BTW, if an opposing coach is using this time...you probably already know you can use this time to have your players come to the bench area, staying on the court, for a little talk.

[bebanovich]

I haven't heard of any "steps" to discourage this out my way.

I think I originally saw it here: http://myweb.cableone.net/bbv/2003-04rules.htm under the Substitutions - Player Disqualification section. I don't know who wrote the text, but the basic outline looks similar to state sites communicating rule changes for the 2003 - 2004 season.

Because of numerous abuses and attempts to circumvent this rule, there have been rules proposals submitted ranging from doing away with the 30-second interval resulting in coaches having to make an immediate substitution, to not permitting the remaining four players near the team bench during this time frame.

It then talks about trying to address abuses through points of emphasis before initiating rule changes.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by bebanovich

I think I originally saw it here: http://myweb.cableone.net/bbv/2003-04rules.htm under the Substitutions - Player Disqualification section. I don't know who wrote the text, but the basic outline looks similar to state sites communicating rule changes for the 2003 - 2004 season.

It then talks about trying to address abuses through points of emphasis before initiating rule changes.

Hmmmmm, good stuff...

I don't know why NFHS would be so anal about this...when I first saw this "abuse", a few years ago, I thought it was pretty clever of the coach to try to get a positive (free 30 second time-out) out of a negative (DQ'd player).
I've heard of officials (maybe on this forum) trying to stop the players from huddling near the bench during this period...
Until the NFHS comes out with something against this practice, we'll continue to let um' play by the current rules in place.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude

[/B]

I don't know why NFHS would be so anal about this...when I first saw this "abuse", a few years ago, I thought it was pretty clever of the coach to try to get a positive (free 30 second time-out) out of a negative (DQ'd player).
[/B][/QUOTE]Fwiw, Illinois tried an NFHS-approved experimental rule 2 years that made a coach immediately substitute for a disqualified player- no 30 seconds given. The feedback, at least from Rut if I remember right, was that the rule worked well and there weren't any problems. Maybe we'll see this one some day.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Fwiw, Illinois tried an NFHS-approved experimental rule 2 years that made a coach immediately substitute for a disqualified player- no 30 seconds given. The feedback, at least from Rut if I remember right, was that the rule worked well and there weren't any problems. Maybe we'll see this one some day.

What I've heard is that IL pushed to make it part of the national rules, but the others on the rules committee didn't vote for it (I don't know the margin of the vote).

I thought it was a good rule, and after the initial confusion / fear over the word "immediately" it worked well.

[Junker]

Coach,
You might want to see if you can get information about Grinnell College in Iowa. They run an interesting substitute pattern where they're bringing in 5 players at a time about every 1 1/2 minutes. They've gotten some national attention (there was a short story on Fox sports last year. I've been to a game and it's kind of a fun game to watch (the game I saw ended up 168-155 in their favor). By the players admission, they play each possession like its the last of the game because they know they are getting a sub in just a few seconds. They've had pretty good success at their level, but I'm not sure it would work with better players. The difference in skill between their #1 guy and #12 guy is far less than in a division I school where your #1 guy is an All American and your #12 guy is a walk on. This doesn't solve your defensive match up problem, but I thought you might find it interesting.

[joseph2493]

Originally posted by nine01c
NFHS

Rule 3 Section 3 Art. 1 e
A captain may request a defensive match-up if three or more substitutes from the same team enter during an opportunity to substitute.

There is no language about the official deciding to honor the request or not. In usual circumstances, it is a given that the official will "honor" such a request. In this circumstance, I would honor the requests in hopes that the frequently-substituting team would cut the clever strategy, or become an ice hockey team.

__________________________________________________ _________

In the case book it says the referee WILL honor this request.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Fwiw, Illinois tried an NFHS-approved experimental rule 2 years that made a coach immediately substitute for a disqualified player- no 30 seconds given. The feedback, at least from Rut if I remember right, was that the rule worked well and there weren't any problems.

It worked great in Massachusetts too, b/c I read about it here and thought it had been adopted nationally. Only got to use it in one game before I realized that MA wasn't actually using the rule. I liked it, too. Oh well.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Junker
Coach,
You might want to see if you can get information about Grinnell College in Iowa.

I think the coach may be familiar with that info, Junker -- since in his first thread he refered to the Grinnell system.

[rwest]

Originally posted by RookieDude
If a coach wants to use the 30 seconds to replace a DQ'd player...no problem.
BTW, if an opposing coach is using this time...you probably already know you can use this time to have your players come to the bench area, staying on the court, for a little talk.

[/B]

In GA, a coach can't huddle his team during any of the following 4 situations (I'm going by memory...I don't have my notes with me).

1. DQ'd player
2. Injured Player
3. Free throws when the lane is cleared (i.e. Techanical Free throws)
4. Blood rule (I think).

I thought this was a change at the Fed level. Does this only pertain to GA?

[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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rwest
I thought this was a change at the Fed level. Does this only pertain to GA?

Well, I don't know if it's only GA, but it's not FED. Why would you keep the coach from huddling during technical FTs or while replacing a DQ'd player? I can almost understand the restriction when there's a player injured on the floor, b/c you don't want a coach to get a free TO by faking an injury. But in the other situations, nobody would do them just to get a few seconds in a huddle.

[rwest]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Well, I don't know if it's only GA, but it's not FED. Why would you keep the coach from huddling during technical FTs or while replacing a DQ'd player? I can almost understand the restriction when there's a player injured on the floor, b/c you don't want a coach to get a free TO by faking an injury. But in the other situations, nobody would do them just to get a few seconds in a huddle.

Then it must be a GHSA specific mechanic. I don't profess to understand the reasoning behind all of the stipulations, but I do remember a great deal of discussion in our association meetings about this.

In GA, we have 28 associations. The state has several rule clinics at different locations. I attended one and several other members attended others. We didn't come away with the same understanding, hence, the great deal of discussion. I do remember at the clinic I attended (I even took notes) that the coach could not huddle his team during a FT when the lane was cleared.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rwest
[/B]

Then it must be a GHSA specific mechanic. I don't profess to understand the reasoning behind all of the stipulations, but I do remember a great deal of discussion in our association meetings about this.

In GA, we have 28 associations. The state has several rule clinics at different locations. I attended one and several other members attended others. We didn't come away with the same understanding, hence, the great deal of discussion. I do remember at the clinic I attended (I even took notes) that the coach could not huddle his team during a FT when the lane was cleared.

[/B][/QUOTE]Do you GA guys still use IAABO as your state body, or did you dump them on the last vote? IAABO issued their own mechanics this year, and they are different than the NFHS mechanics. We've got a few guys in our association that are also IAABO members, and we've had to tell them NOT to use IAABO mechanics. Just wondering if that might be a factor in GA too. Personally, I don't have a clue exactly what in-house mechanics IAABO is promoting this year, and I don't care as long as our guys don't try to use them.