Case plays interpret <b>existing</b> rules that are very explicitly in the rule book.

From the FOREWARD at the front of the case book:
<i>"The play numbers identify the primary Rule, Section, Article of the rules book which <b>supports</b> the interpretation."</i>
That's lawerly talk telling us that case book play 3.1.1 is being supported by rule 3-1-1.
The FOREWARD also says:
<i>"The interpretations and ruling for all play situations <b>have been approved by the rules committee and are official</b>"</i>.

Iow, there is absolutely nothing new being added. Your statement that this play wasn't covered under the rules was wrong, no matter how "lawerly" you wanna get about it. This case play simply says "thou shall have 5 players on the floor at all times if they are available".

US legal system analogy
 

I too enjoy the close examination and discussion of the rules. Also I'm sure that JR and others on this forum do as well or they wouldn't be posting here.

If you wish to use our country's legal system as an analogy think of the NFHS basketball rules in the following manner:

1. The 20 Basketball Rules Fundamentals = the U.S. Constitution

2. The NFHS Rules Book = the Federal Statutes

3. The NFHS Case Book = the body of case law consisting of the decisions made by the federal court system

4. The NFHS Rules committee = the U.S. Congress and also plays the dual role of the U.S. Supreme Court

5. The individual HS state associations = the state legislatures or executive branches depending upon which is most appropriate (How is business conducted by that HS state association? One person has the say or there is a governing group.)

6. state adoptions to NFHS rules = the state laws


Now can Federal judges, including the Supreme Court Justices, make new laws with their decisions? Have they in the past? Should they?

These are questions that get debated in our society all the time.


Personally, I happen to believe that there are examples of NFHS case plays that establish a ruling that is not supported by wording the Rules Book.

If anyone cares to inquire, I'll cite some examples.

Re: US legal system analogy
 

If anyone cares to inquire, I'll cite some examples.

[/B][/QUOTE]If anybody does inquire, I'll find out where they live. :eek:

Conduct yourself accordingly.

I get it. :) But you have to agree it doesnt specifically say that "thou must always have 5 if available" in the rule book. It says that in the case book. Which means I need to spend some more time with the case book as a source of more complete rules not just situations and examples. In the past, I have used it to go over situations or for reference. But it seems the case book may actually contain clearer and more explicit rules statements than the actual rule book.

For example, the rule book should say "A team must have five players participating as long as it has that number available. If no substitute is available, a team must continue with fewer than five players." Why is that in the case book and not in the rule book? That is a much clearer statement than 3-1, dont you agree?

But then as an attorney I am frustrated by the way the rule book is written anyway. For example, definition are chapter 4. That drives me nuts :) Definitions should be chapter 1. But I digress....

..."if they are available."

Hey...cdaref! Are you ready to really clog up your mind? :D

We debate this "if they are available" thing every year.

BTW...I think this is one of the few rule interps that I see differently than JR.

If a coach tells me he does not have a substitute "AVAILABLE"...who am I to question the "AVAILABILITY" of said substitute.

The kid in uniform may be sick or injured. Maybe the coach is disciplining the player. Maybe the player has too many quarters and is not eligible...or his/her grades are not up to the standard of the school's playing requirements, but up to the "sitting on the bench and watching requirements".
I don't know...make up your own reasons why a coach wouldn't put a player in.
IMO...why go fishing...if a coach tells me he/she does not have a substitute "available"...fine, we will play with who they have "available".

Nevada, you're not arguing the current rule interpretation. The rule interpretation(3.1.1) is explicit as all hell- if a player is available, then the coach has to put them in. You're arguing something completely different - what the actual meaning of "available" is. Apples and oranges. Whether "available" can mean different things is a completely different case play- which the FED hasn't issued yet.

Fwiw, I agree with your interpretation of "available" above, in case an interpretation ever does happen to make it into the case book.

By rule: Rule 10 Section 1 Article 9.

"A team shall not fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. Penalty-Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in."

So when you discovered that they only had 4 players on the court following a time-out, by rule, you should have stopped the game and assessed the team with a technical foul.

JR, I think you wanted the "edit" button, instead of the "quote" button ;)

I know, I know. "Shut up"

What <b>are</b> you talking about?

I don't see anything out-of-the-ordinary up above.

You smoking tofu again?

Huh. Looks to me like you quoted yourself. . . But I can't find the post you quoted. . . :confused:

Are you getting enough sleep these days, Chuck?

I'm starting to worry about you.

Don't worry Chuck, JR's having a senior moment! He's even attributing RookieDude's posts to me!!?!?

For the record, my opinion of available differs.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 17th, 2006 at 07:26 PM]

OmiGod!! I did <b>that</b>?

RookieDude, you have my sincerest apologies for confusing you with Nevada.