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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
This case play simply says "thou shall have 5 players on the floor at all times if they are available".
|
..."if they are available."
Hey...cdaref! Are you ready to really clog up your mind? 
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.
|
[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 17th, 2006 at 07:26 PM]
Tue Jan 17, 2006, 07:24pm
Hybrid Mode
