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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________________________________________ _________

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

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.

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

In GA, you can't huddle during a DQ'd player
 

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?

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

Re: In GA, you can't huddle during a DQ'd player
 

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.

Re: Re: In GA, you can't huddle during a DQ'd player
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: In GA, you can't huddle during a DQ'd player
 

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.

IAABO's history in GA
 

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]

Re: IAABO's history in GA
 

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.

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.

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?

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.