Disqualified. No Subs. 30 Secs.?

Rick Durkee · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 20, 2005, 10:12pm

A1 committed his fifth foul. I notified the coach. Team A has no available substitutes. Is there any reason in the world that I have to grant a 30 second delay before starting? (They get 30 seconds to find a sub if they have one, but in this case coach is just looking for an extra time-out because he doesn't have any of those left either.) I didn't let him have the 30 seconds. He was angry, and he was going to look it up when he got home. I am terrified that he will find out that I am wrong.

I found 10-5-1-c Coaches' Rule that allows the coach to stand to "replace or remove a disqualified/injured player...within 30 seconds when a substitute is available". In my situation, no sub was available, although the rule also says "remove" in addition to "replace". I also found rule 2-12-5 under the Timer's Duties, and it does mention "replacing a player". But isn't there some rule in the book that explicity states that the coach has 30 seconds to find a replacement for a disqualified player?

BktBallRef · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 20, 2005, 10:39pm

Tell him he can have the 30 seconds.

Also tell him that you're gonna hit him with the T if he doesn't have a sub at the table before the horn sounds!

refnrev · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 12:07am

Here in Illinois about two years ago we were a test state for a required immediate substitution. I liked it much better than the 30 second rule, but they didn't stick with it. That rule would have solved all of your problems.

tjones1 · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 12:40am

Quote:

Originally posted by refnrev
Here in Illinois about two years ago we were a test state for a required immediate substitution. I liked it much better than the 30 second rule, but they didn't stick with it. That rule would have solved all of your problems.

Speaking of testing things......no mercy rule next year.

JRutledge · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 01:41am

Quote:

Originally posted by tjones1

Quote:

Originally posted by refnrev
Here in Illinois about two years ago we were a test state for a required immediate substitution. I liked it much better than the 30 second rule, but they didn't stick with it. That rule would have solved all of your problems.

Speaking of testing things......no mercy rule next year.

Where did you hear that?

Peace

Nevadaref · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 01:57am

I would not give the 30 second replacement period if no substitutes are available. There is no reason for it.

aussie_ref · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 02:27am

In F.I.B.A rules the would have to play with 4 players until the next substitute comes.

Nevadaref · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 02:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by aussie_ref
In F.I.B.A rules the would have to play with 4 players until the next substitute comes.

Fire away, Padgett.

tjones1 · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 11:53am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

Originally posted by tjones1

Quote:

Originally posted by refnrev
Here in Illinois about two years ago we were a test state for a required immediate substitution. I liked it much better than the 30 second rule, but they didn't stick with it. That rule would have solved all of your problems.

Speaking of testing things......no mercy rule next year.

Where did you hear that?

Peace

JRut,

Heard it a few weeks ago at State -- talked about in the coaches meeting. I know that probably doesn't sound to solid, however it came from my cousin, therefore I'm taking his word on it!

I guess they are taking the side that a younger players could use the extra time on the floor to develop better. Which is fine, I guess, if you look at it that way. But, I would also agree that it could invite problems.

[Edited by tjones1 on Mar 21st, 2005 at 11:56 AM]

JRutledge · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 01:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tjones1

JRut,

Heard it a few weeks ago at State -- talked about in the coaches meeting. I know that probably doesn't sound to solid, however it came from my cousin, therefore I'm taking his word on it! I guess they are taking the side that a younger players could use the extra time on the floor to develop better. Which is fine, I guess, if you look at it that way. But, I would also agree that it could invite problems.

I was just at the State Finals and had a few conversations with a few influential people and no one said anything. Of course the does not mean anything, but no one mentioned it. Of course there were adult beverages flowing all over the place and it was not like people were in the mood to talk about next year or anything outside of the tournament that was going on. It just never was discussed. That is why I asked.

Peace

tjones1 · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 02:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

Originally posted by tjones1

JRut,

Heard it a few weeks ago at State -- talked about in the coaches meeting. I know that probably doesn't sound to solid, however it came from my cousin, therefore I'm taking his word on it! I guess they are taking the side that a younger players could use the extra time on the floor to develop better. Which is fine, I guess, if you look at it that way. But, I would also agree that it could invite problems.

I was just at the State Finals and had a few conversations with a few influential people and no one said anything. Of course the does not mean anything, but no one mentioned it. Of course there were adult beverages flowing all over the place and it was not like people were in the mood to talk about next year or anything outside of the tournament that was going on. It just never was discussed. That is why I asked.

Peace

It's all good!

Did you enjoy your weekend? I didn't get to watch any of it, however I got updates every now and then. A good friend of mine is an assistant coach on Carbondale, so I was glad to see them do well. Anyways, just like anything else, it's not official until I hear it from the office or probably it will be announced at the rules meeting. Time will tell.

JRutledge · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 02:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tjones1

It's all good! Did you enjoy your weekend? I didn't get to watch any of it, however I got updates every now and then. A good friend of mine is an assistant coach on Carbondale, so I was glad to see them do well. Anyways, just like anything else, it's not official until I hear it from the office or probably it will be announced at the rules meeting. Time will tell.

I loved it. I knew 10 of the 12 officials. I met one of them last year. It seems like every well known official from my area comes down to watch and hang out. It is like an informal official's convention. It is a blast the last two years I come down. I will continue to attend the event until I have some serious conflict.

I am not saying you are wrong about the change, just heard no one talk about it. I am sure I will hear something this summer when camp season begins. I personally would like to see the change, I personally hated the rule. Coaches did not like it and it did not allow kids to play that never get to play. After all, the game is not about how long we are there. It is about the kids playing. Let them play if you ask me.

Peace

tjones1 · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 02:52pm

Totally agree, let them play, they went through practice, they deserve a little floor time.

BktBallRef · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 21, 2005, 03:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
I was just at the State Finals and had a few conversations with a few influential people and no one said anything. Of course the does not mean anything, but no one mentioned it.

Then why even bring it up if it doesn't mean anything?