In another thread, there was a discussion of the system my team uses that requires substition of 5 fresh players every minute or so to maintain an extreme pace. Much to my chagrin, :) a few posters (wisely) stated that, if they were the opponent, they would request a defensive match-up whenever we subbed.

My first response is to wince whenever I hear mention of this rule, but I decided to take a closer look at it first before I dare not speak its name again.

A coach running the same system in college sent me what I presume is a direct quote from his rule book:

"When 3 or more substitutes for the same team enter the game, an official may honor a request by the opposing captain to aid it in locating the entering players."

This raises serveral questions for me:
1) Is this also how the rule is worded for high school?
2) Does timid language such as "official may honor" and captain may "request" make this rule as discretionary as it first appears to the lesser trained eyes of a coach?
3) If this is truly discretionary, what criteria would you use to decide whether to "honor a request?" Would you grant this request every minute for the whole game? Why / why not?

Now is probably a good time to confess the sin of not having a rule book in my possession (my A.D. can't find my new one and I tossed my old ones).

My fingers are crossed in anticipation of your responses. :)

Sorry, coach. The NFHS rule says that a captain may request a defensive match-up if 3 or more subs enter. If they ask, we comply. There's no reason not to. It's that simple.

NFHS R3-S3-A1e: A captain may request a defensive match-up if there are three or more subsitutes from the same team during an opportunity to substitute.

That means that either captain may request a match-up when either team substitutes three or more players during an opportunity to substitute.

With respect to NCAA rules. There is not rule or A.R. that addresses this situation but the college coach was correct. The rule that we are discussing dates back to when the NBCUSC wrote the rules for H.S. and college. When the NFHS and NCAA rules committees came into being all casebook plays in effect were adopted by the two rules committees. Until a few years ago the situation was not in the rules as a rule but as a Question and Answer within Rule 3. A Question and Answer within at rule is considered a Casebook Play (NFHS) or an Approved Ruling (NCAA). For some unexplained reasoning the rules committees dropped this particular Q/A from the appropriate rules section, but that did not void the ruling. Then the NFHS actually amended Rule 3 to include this situation in particular.

Getting back to your original question about how to implement this rule. If either team enters three or more substitutes at the same time and any player from either team is knowledgeable enough to make the request, I will honor the player's request. The accepted way to faciliate the match-up is to line the players up at the nearest freethrow circle (I am dating myself) is if we were going to administer a jump ball (now I am really dating myself).

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Dec 5th, 2004 at 06:10 PM]

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.

This is not an uncommon sentiment but I'm afraid that your hopes will not be honored by any coach I know of who runs this system.

I make a habit of not trying to win any converts outside my team and fan base, but I will say that the amount of thought, genuine desire for positive participation by ALL players and careful statistical analysis goes well beyond the realm of "clever strategy."

Thanks for the thoughtful rules clarification. I have stopped living in denial of this rule and have started working on Plan B. Not to disappoint anyone but it does not involve cutting the clever strategy or becoming a hockey team. :)

No NCAA rule? The one that the coach above got sent to him is currently in the NCAA rulebook as R3-4-16.

Coach,
I would like to hear what plan B is--always a fan of innovative thinking

I think I would continue the 5-man substitution pattern for the better part of the first quarter. Calling for a defensive match-up every minute is not the most macho thing to do and, in my experience, most coaches I have faced eventually cave to their macho instincts - regardless of their gender (macho is probably not the best word here). I think crowd frustration would add to the mix.

I also think that, although the match-up strategy would be more disruptive to our style, it would also be disruptive to our opponent's style.

After a war of wills, my intial thinking is that I would go to a 2-2-1 substitution pattern. At the first whistle, sub 1 and 2, at the next 3 and 4 and the next 5. After 25 seconds or so, I would repeat the pattern. In theory, as long as I substituted in the same order, the shifts would work out to be roughly the same length for all players.

This is certainly not ideal, but it initially seems much more
desirable than an unofficial timeout for the opponent every 45
seconds.

[Edited by bebanovich on Dec 5th, 2004 at 07:12 PM]

new question
 

OK. I realize that talking about the wacky system my team runs probably doesn't help you guys much in the work that you normally do, but I hope it is interesting to some of you.

Here's my new question. The rule states that a captain may request a defensive match-up whenever we sub more than three. If the opponent is playing almost exclusively a zone defense, can this request really be considered to be a genuine defensive match-up.

I know that I'm splitting hairs in pursuit of any advantage I can get - but as long as I am not clearly trying to violate the spirit of a rule, I consider this my RESPONSIBILITY as a coach.

It seems to me that the spirit of this rule is to help prevent an unfair advantage created by match-up confusion during mass substitution. This may be an initial byproduct of the system we play but it certainly isn't a goal. In fact, I think that after a few minutes of game play, it is easier for teams to match-up when we sub the same two line-ups everytime. The opposing players quickly figure out which two guys they're covering.

Would a team playing zone be violating the spirit of the rule by asking for a defensive match-up? This point is probably moot, but it seems to me that a rule worded "may request" opens the door for some discretion about the spirit of the rule and the appropriateness of the request.

Thanks for your indulgence,
David

Re: new question
 

No, they would not be violating the spirit of the rule. If you sub 3 or more and the team wants a match-up, they're getting it.

Z

Wrong, the rule states that a captain may request a match-up if you substitute 3 <b>or</b> more players. It's a very plainly written rule and we just follow it, whether we like it or agree with it.

Oops, I stand corrected. I did not do a very good job of reveiwing my NCAA Rules Book. I am so ashamed. I guess I am getting old and senile.

MTD, Sr.

Right. My bad.

OK. Your second sentence is clear to me and, ultimately, I will have to live with this as the answer. However, I don't understand how it would not be a violation of the spirit of the rule if a team is asking for a defensive match-up when they are not matching up defensively. Is the spirit of the rule not to guard against match-up confusion? If not, what is it?

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?

Coach,
We as officials cannot be expected to read the minds of the opposing Coach. Maybe he wants a defensive match-up to determine if he will go man or stay in a zone.

Some might say both coaches are displaying gamesmanship, with the subs and the match ups...I think it would be kind of interesting to see how it plays out.

OK. Your second sentence is clear to me and, ultimately, I will have to live with this as the answer. However, I don't understand how it would not be a violation of the spirit of the rule if a team is asking for a defensive match-up when they are not matching up defensively. Is the spirit of the rule not to guard against match-up confusion? If not, what is it?

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? [/B][/QUOTE]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 <b>have</b> 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.