If a player is dressed out and is sitting on the bench does he/she need to be in the official scorebook?

I had a player that the coach says was not going to play because of a function she attended the night before. The coach still made her attend the game and suit up. I had her put the player in the book due to the fact that she had her uniform on and was sitting on the bench. Is this correct?

Is this the same for a player that was ejected from a prior game and is sitting on the bench during this game? I assume that if the player is wearing street clothes then they don't need to be in the book.

They don't need to be in the book but if they play they are penalized accordingly. Good idea to put all uniformed players in the book.

I would not force the coach to enter the player in the book. I would rather let the coach decide who is to be entered. That being said if the situation arises that the player is still on the bench and is the only player available for substitution for a disqualification, that would be an admin tech to enter the player in the book. I would try and inform the coach of this possibility, rather than force the issue.

In my area we get the coach at the 10 minute mark to check his book, mark starters, captains, numbers, and initial the bottom. I will count the players beforehand and compare that to the book. When I introduce myself to the coach I will let him kow that I counted 11 on the court and he only has 9 in the book. If he tells me that they will not play I just ask him to initial under the last players name and say good luck.

I am not going to make him put someone in the book. It is his team. I just make him aware of the discrepency and move on.

It doesn't hurt to have that player in the book. The coaches that I appreciate are the ones who have a copy of the whole roster for the season to hand to the table. The ones I've seen like this include the freshman who has only played 3 varsity quarters over the whole year, and the two "starters" who are injured. The roster was typed once, and copies made, and the coach doesn't have to think about it any more. What does it hurt to have the extras in there?

It does not hurt one bit to have them in there. My point is that I am making him aware that the players on the court do not match the number of players in the book.

This is the coaches team, I do not expect them to help me officiate the game nor do I want any of their help in making calls. It is the coaches call as far as how he handles the book and who they choose to put in it and who does not go in the book. If that is how they want the book fine by me. If a change is made down the road during the game it will just be a T. Oh well.

If a player was ejected from a prior game, they should not be dressed in the first place...so it shouldn't be a problem... But like was said already, it's the coaches and book keepers responsibility to have who they want in their book, all you may do is let them know there is a difference between players on bench and in the book, and let it go at that...

OK, what if the function that the player attended the night before (I not knowing what it was) made the coach TRULY not want this player to play tonight.

The player is being punished for attending the function.

His team ends up with all but four of his players fouling out and not, because the player being disciplined was put in the book, the coach has to play him/her.

Not likely that a coach would want to play with only 4 players rather than 5. I've got to go with TwoDot and just inform the coach of the possibility, never force the coach to put someone in their books.

i still don't think that the coach has to play a player just because they are bench personnel. IMHO, If the coach is trying to instill some discipline into the team and using this kid as an example, then I say good for coach. If someone is punished and his team has to suffer because of their actions then maybe next time they will think twice before being a moron.

Had this type of situation Tuesday night. Visiting team had 12 in the book, 14 on the floor. My partner was Ref and when he checked the book and discovered this, he gave the coach the chance to add the players explaining the "just in case" situations. The coach said they were not going to play under any circumstance and kindly refused to add the players (all interaction between coach and ref was professional). The book was left as submitted. My partner informed me of the situation when he returned from checking the book and, just before the start of the game we made sure the scorebook keeper knew the situation as well and to inform us if a player is requested to be added or reports for substitution (at the appropriate time).

If a coach tells me a player is ineligible I'm not going to ask the coach to put him in. That player may be ineligible due to grades, team rules, or who knows what.

No, that's not his call, Bush. If he has a uniformed player on the bench that's healthy and physically able to play, he has to play with 5. If they're inelgibile to play, they shouldn't be dressed.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 23rd, 2005 at 01:04 AM]

I'm not coaching for him, smarta$$.

I'm following the rules, as they are written. If he has 5 healthy available players, he has to have 5 on the floor.

If he wants to make her ineligible, she needs to leave the uniform in the locker room.

Wrong again. If he's not in a uniform, I have no idea who he is, do I? Players wear uniforms. If he's not in uniform, he's not a player. I couldn't care less who he is or why he's there.

Tony,
Is correct BY RULE on this.

Notice that 4-34-4 states that this uniformed kid on the bench IS a team member.

The coach is not allowed to pull a Gene Hackman and play with four when he has a healthy fifth available. The only team members who do not have to enter to maintain five players in the game are those that are already DQ'd and those who are injured.



Applicable rules:
page 10 "THE GAME - Basketball is played by two teams of five players each."

3-1-1
Each team consists of five players, one of whom is the captain.
NOTE: A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five.

3-2-2b + 10-1-2b
After the 10-minute time limit...
Adding a name to the team member list.

4-34-4 A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

Unfortunately, that is your definition of eligible, it is not the RULES BOOK definition. Simply by being dressed in a uniform and present on the bench, the kid is eligible TO BECOME a player.
Under normal circumstances he does not have to become a player, but the requirement to maintain FIVE PLAYERS in the game forces this team member to enter. And as you know, once he enters, he has to be added to the scorebook, thus the T is forced in this case.

It is not up to the coach to decide. His team MUST have FIVE players in the game, if that is possible.
You could allow the coach to tell you that this kid is either ill or injured, and then you could avoid forcing him to enter the game.

You may not like it, but that is the way the rule works.

Again you are using a different definition of eligible. You are hung up on the way that we use that word in everyday speech. For officiating a basketball game that word takes on a very specific meaning. Basketball jargon.

The rules book usage of eligible has nothing to do with grades, transfers, residency, school attendance, discipline, etc.
Those are items that the state organization and the schools themselves determine. During the game it is the official's job to simply look who is dressed out and on the bench. Plain and simple.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, just attempting to give you some guidance. If you choose to do it differently, best wishes to ya. :)

Actually, he is. There is just a penalty if he does.
Nowhere does the rules book state what you are advocating.
The same is true for a player who is wearing the wrong number or an illegal shirt (jersey). The CAN play, there is just a penalty for the uniform problem.

You certainly wouldn't tell the coach that a kid can't play because his jersey has the wrong number on it, right? You penalize the infraction and the kid plays.
This is the same thing. The kid was simply left off the team member list that was submitted to the scorer. (That may have even been intentional.) Now you simply penalize the team for this infraction, and the kid participates.

In that case send an email to the NFHS and see what they tell you. Good luck.

Neither side of this debate has any real backing in the rule or case book. It mostly hinges on the definition of "eligible" which is not defined.

The coach could send the player in question to the locker room if he liked...thereby making the player not available.

I agree. I'm saying that just because a player is in the book doesn't mean the coach has to play them.

The main thing that you guys are losing sight of is that a team MUST have FIVE PLAYERS in the game unless all other team members are disqualified, hurt, or ill.
This requirement 3-1-1 overrides any other argument that has been made in this thread.

I thought you said they also had to be eligible.
That's what this whole debate seems to be hinging on.

Is a player eligible just because he is sitting on the bench in the school's uniform?
Can a coach suit up a player that was ejected the night before? (As long as he doesn't enter him in the book)
Can a coach suit up a player that is not eligible because of grades, etc.? (As long as he doesn't enter him in the book)
If we, as officials, see a player in uniform...do we have to assume he is eligible?

As Camaron said...these questions are not addressed in our rule book. I believe they would be administrative issues with the school and/or state.

Agree with that completely. I just can't imagine ordering a coach to put in a player that he has told me is sick, hurt, ineligible, etc. That's a law suit waiting to happen.

Yep. :)

Although the tone and tenor of this discussion isn't exemplary, I think this raises an interesting and potentially valuable point.

The rules require a team to play 5 available "players," but an individual is not a "player" unless s/he is "eligible" to be a "player." In my humble opinion, an individual is not eligible to become a player if s/he is not listed in the scorer's book. It is up to the coach/school to determine who they want to put in the book (and thus make eligible). If a kid isn't listed in the scorer's book, regardless of whether that kid is in uniform, I am *not* making that kid enter the game.

(As has been alluded to earlier, a team can - at the expense of a T - add individuals to the scorer's book who are then eligible to become players, but I don't think the rules give me, as an official, the authority to force a team to do so.)

Two scenarios: (1) a JV squad member is in her uniform sitting behind the bench and cheering the varsity squad; varsity squad, via injury and disqualification, is down to four players; is anyone making the varsity coach add the JV squad member to her varsity squad, penalizing a T, and making the JV squad member enter the game? [The answer is "No"!]
(2) a varsity squad member is caught driking the night before; the coach won't play that squad member but requires her to sit on the team bench in uniform; coach doesn't list that squad member in the scorer's book; is anyone making the varsity coach add the varsity squad member to the scorer's book, penalizing a T, and making the "driking-suspended" squad member enter the game? [The answer is, or should be, "No"!]

My $.02.

Actually, all I did was quote the definition of a TEAM MEMBER. The rule contains that phrase.

4-34-4 A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

All this means is that this team member has not been previously disqualified and thus barred from further participation. It has nothing to do with the scorebook. Don't make that leap.

YES. He has met the definition of a team member, and as long as he is not a disqualified player 4-14-1, he is eligible. That is all that is required by the NFHS Rules Book.

Not in the state of Nevada. We have a state association regulation that says the kid cannot even attend the game. He can't even be in the gym up in the stands in street clothes.
However, there is NO requirement in the NFHS rules that a kid be suspended for a game due to actions in a previous game. That is TOTALLY up to your state, and if your state doesn't have a regulation against it, then yes the kid can be there.
How are you supposed to know what happened in the previous game? You weren't there. Not your issue. Just apply what's in the rules book and let the state association sort it all out later.

Same answer as above.

ABSOLUTELY! The converse assumption would be ridiculous as we would have to assume that the entire team was ineligible until they were proven eligible. That's not the way it works.

Right. As an official on the court, you can't possibly know all the other stuff that goes on off it. Therefore, you keep it simple.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 26th, 2005 at 03:10 AM]

I'm sure that you aren't an attorney, since you have demonstrated your total inability to grasp the concept of jargon. (: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group)

As I've told you before, eligible is being used in a very narrow and specific way in the NFHS Rules Book. It means "hasn't been disqualified." That's all. You just can't understand that.

Have you contacted the NFHS yet as I asked you to?
Until then, you have no basis for your remark.
It is as obtuse as those you have made in some of your other posts. Especially, the one toward rainmaker.

So come on now, accept the challenge and contact the NFHS. Let's see you actually back up something that you say for once.

Rule 3-1 says a game must start with 5 players. If it has no substitutes because of injuries etc. they may play with less than 5. 4-34-4 says a team member is bench personnel who is in uniform and eligible to be a player.

If the coach is disciplining a player or players by suspending them for a game and requiring them to be in uniform on the bench (a not uncommon event I think you would agree) and thus making them ineligible to play as per team or school rule I would not force them to play. I beleive that I can do this as per rule 2-3.

I see nothing in the case book supporting your contention nor mine for that matter. 4-34-4 is basically saying an eligible player must be in uniform. If a Coach tells me that player is ineligible to play that's good enough for me. I'm hanging my hat on 2-3 and supporting the Coach.

There's nothing worse than watching your team lose because you broke a team rule. A lesson well learned and you shouldn't interfer with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<LI>Kid on the bench in uniform won some school contest to dress and sit with the team on the bench. Is that an eligible player?
<LI>The 48 year-old assistant coach is in a uniform. Eligible player?
<LI>The coaches 8 year-old son is on the bench and in uniform. Is he an eligible player?

By your definitions, these are all eligible.
Are you really going to force the coach to put an 8 year-old or 48 year-old into the game just because they're on the bench and have a uniform on.

Even if they were actually team members, all the coach has to do is tell them to remove thier shirt and they're no longer eligible by your interpretation.

As you said, you can't possibly know what is really going on. Keep it simple here. Coach says no eligible subs...there are no eligible subs.

<LI>The 48 year-old assistant coach is in a uniform. Eligible player?
[/B][/QUOTE]A not-too-smart 48 year-old playing coach who is still a junior?

Hmmmmmm. Maybe not that rare. I think that I've run into a few assistant coaches that might meet that description. :D

I would think it would be possible for a player to be “ineligible” with out being “disqualified”. What about being academically suspended or having to sit out a game for being ejected from a previous game?

I don't know why it took four pages for this thing, seems rather simple if the coach doesn't want the player in the game.

Ref: Coach, you need to bring in #23 to have five players on the floor.

Coach: #23 is injured.

Ref: Alright.

Lots of arguing over a relatively simple matter. And I consider Nevadaref's argument that "eligible" is not specifically defined in rule book to be a specious argument at best and only used to deflect comment away from the real issue that he usually doesn't know what he is talking about. I believe "eligibility" is specifically discussed through definitions of varios terms and concepts that when understood in their simplicity we all know what the word means. To wit, hand, arms, legs, torso, expiration (of time), notification (as in telling coach of disqualified player) are words that are not specifically defined in rule book but we know their meaning.

That said:

The game of basketball is played by two teams.
defn: TEAM: 5 Players (See pg 10 rule book -THE GAME). Live ball/dead ball does not apply here as the designated starters are considered players (3.2.1) and the ones who can be legally on the court for opening Jump ball.

defn: PLAYER: One of the 5 legally on the court. (4.34.1)

defn: BENCH PERSONNEL: others affilited with the team. (4.34.2). For our purposes we are only dealing here with SUBSTITUTES.
defn: SUBSTITUTE: bench personnel/team members who become players (4.34.3)
defn: TEAM MEMBER: is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform AND eligible to become a player (4.34.4). ie. Substitute

There is only ONE way to determine who is eligible to become a player and that is the coach must state in writing that the person on the bench is a teammember. (Rule 3.2.1). The coach is the sole judge of whose names he submits and cannot be forced by any other person to put any name on the list he does not want to. Only those names which the coach supplies to be placed in the official scorebook may be players or substitutes. Others, whose names are not on this list but on the bench (whether in uniform or not) may not play or be forced to play but are still considered bench personnel.

Example 1: Jon Jones is a junior in high school sitting on the team bench and a) is wearing team uniform, or b) is wearing street clothes. His name is not in the official scorebook how do we define his status per NFHS Rules?

Answer: He is not listed as a team member therefore he cannot be a player or a substitute. All others on the bench who are neither payers nor substitutes are defined as bench personnel. Jon is just BENCH PERSONNEL whether wearing uniform or not.

Example 2: Can the coach change Jon's status. Yes. In a.) The coach must add his name into the official scorebook (with or without penalty given time restraints per 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). Once Jon becomes a TEAM MEMBER he is ELIGIBLE to become a PLAYER by reporting to the scorer's table as a SUBSTITUTE who is ready and entitled to enter (3.3.1.d) By the way, "entitled" is not specifically defined so I hope NEVADAREF doesn't wish to argue this either).

In b. Jon must put on a uniform and be entered by coach into official score book.

Example 3: Jon is on the bench wearing team uniform. his name is not in the official scorebook. Players of his team foul out leaving only 4 players to finish the game. a.) Can the coach add Jon's name? b.)Do rules mandate that coach MUST enter jon's name? c.) Can the officials mandate that the coach MUST enter Jon's name. d.) Does his team have to forfeit? e:)additional team members foul out leaving only one can the coach voluntarily enter Jon at this time even though he opted not to earlier?

Answers:
a. Yes, with penalty 3.2.2.b
b. NO
c. NO, not within their jurisdiction.
d. NO a team may play with fewer than five.
e. YES, although if his team still has the opportunity to win the game with one player he does not have to.

The point is it is solely the coach's decision whose names shall be in the rulebook and solely within his discretion when any name is entered/added before and during the game.

Daryl,
Don't you work with De Nucci? Or is my memory failing me at 30?

BRAVO!! BRAVO!! BRAVO!!

That's my partner.

MTD, Sr.

Good grief, what's your pregame like? :D

Isn't it quite obvious? Why use 20 words when 11,200 will do.

If he didn't work with MTD Sr., he should.

Lah me. The King and the Crown Prince of convoluted arguments. :D

Four days.

I give thanks daily for the 4 day pregame with MTD.

Just think if he got all his old pregames out of the attic they would be more like 40 day and 40 nights. A real deluge.

Anyone wishing me to pray for Nevadaref can send $10.00. For that you will get the prayer, plus as a one time offer I will send a letter opener to remove his rule books from their seal, and a dictionary.

So you don't agree with what he says in this thread, so that means that "he usually doesn't know what he is talking about?"

You know what Rev? That's bull$hit. And I don't mind telling you that it is.

NVRef is a valuable contributor to this board. He and I don't always see eye to eye but personally, I think has a very good understanding of the rules and how to apply them. To date, he's certainly contributed a whole lot more to this site than you have.

I gotta agree with BBR...we might not see eye to eye (or is that an eye for an eye);) on this issue, but NevadaRef does USUALLY know what he is talking about.
Give him a break Rev.

Gotta agree with BktBallRef on this one too. I respect Nevada's knowledge of the rules also.

If the coach REALLY wanted to teach a lesson, the kid would not be dressed for the game. Reminds me of some football coaches who penalized players by keeping them out of the first quarter. Some lesson!

Since you can not attack neither my logic nor my rules knowledge you have to attack me. This is a common tactic of debate when someone has been so thoroughly discredited he has to deflect the argument to cover his own shortcomings.

The number of my posts is low and I pick and choose wisely if and when to respond. But when I do everyone knows completely where I stand because I am very concise at what I say and back up my arguments with the proper rules citations. (See my earlier "sermon"...as of yet nothing to dispute what I said).

Partner, if I ever attack you, you'll know it. I simply didn't appreciate your remarks, and expressed that.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 27th, 2005 at 12:30 AM]

Nope, we're attacking your name-calling and demeaning posts. That says a lot about you as a person.

Btw, from what I've seen of your posts, your logic isn't very logical at times either. Jmo.

Let me start by saying thanks to those who responded to Mr. Long's derogatory comment. It means a tremendous amount to me that I have garnered your respect. Actually, I consider having the respect of your peers to be one of the highest honors anyone could have in an avocation. We may not always agree, but we can certainly disagree civilly. As you have perceived, I certainly care about HS officiating in general, and personally improving at it, and your opinions have shown the same and thus matter to me.

Mr. Long, never have I disparaged you, nor would I over something so petty as a disagreement over basketball rules. You owe me an apology.

Now to the small stuff:

1. This is NOT the main issue. It is a subsidiary point. The main issue is whether a kid who is not listed in the scorebook MUST enter the game to maintain five players on the floor when all other team members have been disqualified or injured, thus forcing a team technical foul. His entry is NOT complicated by outside eligibility issues such as grades or suspension, nor is health a concern. The only problem is that he is not in the scorebook and the coach doesn't want to put him into it.
This is the real question and the case in which I firmly the kid must enter the game or it should be forfeited.

Please pose this scenario to your connection on the rules committee and see what he says.

2. Now we will handle point 1A.

This doesn't seem like the writing of a rules committee member due to the misuse of the term player. I never have contended that the student who is not in the book is a player. I only have argued that he is a TEAM MEMBER.
That aside, for now I will give BushRef the benefit of the doubt that this really did come from a committee member. How about you tell us which one though?

I also don't believe that one member's thoughts carry the day, afterall there are thirteen of these folks, although those thoughts should carry more weight than mine.
The final word on this likely hasn't been written yet. It may well turn out that the NFHS wants to handle ineligible/suspended players Mr. Long's way. I would not have a problem with that, but it should be made explicitly clear in the NFHS rules. Right now it is definitely not clear. Even BktBallRef who is the President of his association and has officiated the state tournament has a similar opinion to mine on the current reading of the rules with regard to this situation.
A coach could definitely fib to avoid a technical foul in the right situation of a game. This possibility should be precluded by the rules. The rule should be black and white.
Therefore, I strongly suggest to the NFHS that they make it simple by adopting what I have advocated, if that has not been the interpretation all along.
Simply put, if the student athlete is dressed in a uniform and seated on the team bench, then he is eligible to participate. If the student doesn't meet school/league/state association qualifications, then he can't be in uniform. He could be in street clothes on the bench. This is an objective standard and makes it very clear for the game officials.

There are really two issues with the eligibility concern.
1. The student is not allowed to play because of academics or some other school policy.
2. The student was ejected from a previous contest and is serving a suspension.

My state covers the second situation quite nicely. That student cannot attend the game, so there will not be a problem of this nature in Nevada.
Here is our state association regulation:
2080.0303 Ejections
...
In all cases, if a student or coach has been rendered ineligible to participate due to an ejection, the student or coach is prohibited from being on the premises during that game, contest or meet and any other game, contest or meet from which the student or coach has been excluded as a result of the ejection.

A coach or student who is ejected from a game, contest or meet is prohibited from being on the premises during the game, contest or meet from which he/she has been ejected
or rendered ineligible as a result of the ejection, as well as the next regularly scheduled
game, contest or meet.

1. Premises shall be defined as the total area in which the game, contest or meet takes place including any area designated for spectators.

2. No student ejected from a game, contest or meet at a venue away from the student's home school shall be left unsupervised. It shall be the responsibility of the
student's head coach to ensure proper adult supervision of the student takes place.


Sadly, it does not do as nice a job with the first situation (and I have just emailed them about it) as academically ineligible students are prohibited from playing, but the regulations say nothing about their attending such contests, let alone suiting up in a uniform and sitting on the bench. This could definitely pose a problem.

2070.1201 Participation of Ineligible Student In Game, Contest or Meet

A student who is declared ineligible for participation in any NIAA sanctioned sport pursuant to
NIAA Regulations is prohibited from appearing in any game, contest or meet.

2070.1202 Practice

A student who is declared ineligible for participation in any NIAA sport during a particular season
may practice if the coach and principal of the member or affiliate school grant approval.

a. Any ineligible student is prohibited from participating in any interscholastic
competition including, but not limited to, scrimmages, exhibitions, etc.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 27th, 2005 at 06:40 AM]

So, Nevada, when is your dissertation defense scheduled?!?

I humbly disagree nothing like being in uniform benched for the game and knowing that you can't play.

Nevada, I disagree with your stance. As per my previous post no case play to support you and none to support my opinion. Ergo. one could use 2-3 and if the Coach wants to play with 4 for disciplinary reasons that would be fine with me.

IMHO this makes so much sense that I would be surprised if the Fed. thought otherwise. Here we are complaining about kids out of control etc. and you have a Coach trying to instill discipline and by our actions we are kinda sorta cutting his legs out from under him. Seems counter productive to me.

Don't expect you to agree so we can agree to disagree. If you can site one case play from a well known reputable source the Fed., Ref. Magazine, Interp. etc. I would do as you suggested.

[Edited by gordon30307 on Jan 27th, 2005 at 11:33 AM]

The Ph.D. in DeNucci studies? :p

NevedaRef:

It does not matter how many "people in uniform" are sitting on the bench, if their names are not in the scorebook, they are not eligible per the rules to enter the game. And more importantly the Referee does not have the authority to make a Head Coach enter any of those “people” into the scorebook. Just give it up, because there is nothing in the rules that gives the Referee that authority to compel a Head Coach to enter the names in the scorebook. As far as R2-S3: As they say in New York City – Forget about it.

MTD, Sr.

When I coached HS and college basketball I NEVER dressed a kid that had no chance of playing due to injury or ineligibility. And, I didn't get into humiliating players as a punishment.

But it's not our job to enforce our style of coaching and discipline.

Agreed!

It's humiliating and embarassing to be benched for disciplanary reasons how could it be any other way? I fail to see the difference if a player is benched if he's in the stands or if he's with his team. It's humiliating and embarassing either way. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. JMO

A reasonable person would see that forcing a kid to sit on the bench in uniform is more humiliating than not being on the bench at all and even can be considered punishment. I am not into punishment. I am into working with the kids to make disciplinary events a "learning" situation. I don't talk about "doing time." That is non-productive. Everyone makes mistakes. I like to help them learn from them. Nuff said.

Even if a player is dressed, in the book, and healthy, they may not be eligible. Juulie some where mentioned the state's eligibility rules (most, if not all states have something similar). A player may play in at most 5 quarters a day. Small schools sometimes swing several players between the JV and Varisty teams.

Consider A who has 8 players on the bench. A7 and A8 both played 3 quarters in the JV game and both played in Q1 and Q2 of the varisty game (maxing out their daily eligibility). In the 2nd half, A5 and A6 are both injured leaving A1-A4 in the game. If the coach puts in either of A7 or A8, he'll forfeit the game the moment the ball is made live. He has no eligible players according to the state's rules. While we don't normally get into the state eligibility rules, we shouldn't force a coach to violate them or face a penalty other than playing short.

You know, if a coach plays someone who is ineligible, it's up to the opposing coach to go to the higher authorities and get the forfeit. Would the same be true in the reverse situation? Coach doesn't play someone who is eligible. If it were an issue on that level, this whole thread would be meaningless. We say, "Put her in" Coach says, "No" We go on. If the other coach wants a forfeit, it's his ball to carry.