I had another situation in a game last week that made me think I should start a thread in which we could make a list of the items for which we really desire the Fed to issuing rulings.
Let's gather all these grey areas together in the hope of the NFHS clarifying them.
If you recall, I observed a play a couple of week ago that sparked that interrupted dribble/backcourt violation thread.

Now I had:
1. OOB call, white ball.
2. Lengthy substitution process conducted.
3. Three dumb refs put the ball in play following a lengthy substitution process with only nine girls on the floor.
(I was the C and am now hanging my head in shame. :( )
The inbounding team only has four as one of its players believing she was substituted out of the game went and sat on the bench.
4. The ball is passed in and the team with four immediately scores! (Yeah, that's essentially three on five for those of you counting, since white had one player OOB making the throw-in.)
5. I can now clearly see only 4 players for white on the floor and sound the whistle stopping play. (Question 1: Perhaps I shouldn't have done this, but I reacted to the odd situation of only four on the floor. Maybe the correct procedure is to just continue with this team down a player until a foul/violation occurs or a TO is requested?)
6. The fifth girl for white never moved from the bench the entire time. She never tried to report the table or reenter the floor during the play. She simply sat there unaware of the situation. The coach was not aware of the mistake either.
7. There was no intent to deceive and with the rule change to 10-3-3, I do not believe that this team can be punished with a T. My partner wanted to charge the technical foul, but I talked him out of it as I couldn't come up with any rule that backed assessing one.

Therefore, I want a 10.3.3SitC which is similar to 10.3.3SitB except that the missing player makes no effort to return the game. He/she simply sits on the bench while the team plays with four. What should the officials do?

IMHO they certainly didn't gain any kind of advantage being one player down and it obviously wasn't any kind of an attempt to deceive - just a stupid mistake.

I'd stop play at the first lull in action (which it appears is what you did), tell the coach "Coach, you need one more player out here!", let her report, beckon her in & then resume at the POI.

IMHO they certainly didn't gain any kind of advantage being one player down and it obviously wasn't any kind of an attempt to deceive - just a stupid mistake.

<font color = red>I'd stop play at the first lull in action (which it appears is what you did)</font>, tell the coach "Coach, you need one more player out here!", let her report, beckon her in & then resume at the POI.
[/B][/QUOTE]That's the only part that I disagree with. If you stop play instead of waiting for a natural whistle, then you're taking an advantage <b>away</b> from the other team. They put the correct number of players on the floor; don't penalize them for doing so. Stopping the play is just bailing out the team that can't count to 5 imo.

"Each team consists of five players..."

I agree with Tim and disagree with Jur. The reason? It was an officiating mistake to begin the series with less than 5 players on one team. Hey, mistakes happen, and that's fine. But it isn't necessarily a "legal" advantage for the other team, and you don't "penalize" the other team by making sure all rules are correctly followed. You won't interrupt a layup or shot with a whistle, but you will stop the play as soon as there is the least bit of "lull" in the action and get 5 players on the court for both teams.

We don't, for example, let another player other than the one actually fouled attempt a free throw even if its an innocent mistake by Team A and Team B doesn't notice it. We also tell players to stand still on spot throw ins which in some cases reminds them of the rule and keeps them from violating it. This doesn't give one team or another an advantage -- its doing our jobs on one hand and preventative officiating on the other.

But, what if one team wants to inbounds the ball quickly to fast-break, or get the ball in before the other can set up the press?

What if one coach was "asleep" and failed to make a substitution to counter the other teams subs?

There are several reasons why stopping the game could give an advantage or cause a disadvantage to one team or the other.

It doesn't matter. This isn't a situation where one of the teams mistakenly shoot at the wrong basket or something similar. Stopping the game in the two situations you mentioned have nothing to do with not complying with the rule that a team is made up of 5 players.

If a team is stalling coming out of a time out and you want to put the ball into play, putting them at an effective disadvantage, that's fine. But that wasn't what the described situation was. Rather, it was where the coach didn't insert a fifth player and the crew allowed it to happen. Besides, I said, "stop the play as soon as there is the least bit of "lull" in the action." That doesn't include, for example, a "fast-break, or get the ball in before the other can set up the press."

Cool.

Cite a rule that let's you stop play then.

You know, in case somebody asks....

FED: 2-3.

Cite something that allows you to play without enforcing 3-1.

:D

Good feedback folks, and from the responses given I think that it is apparent why I really would like to see something in print from the NFHS on this.

I'm not a fan of invoking 2-3 for something that has some coverage in the rules.
The problem with saying that the team broke 3-1 is that there is not a penalty provided in the books for doing such.
The NFHS needs to specify the penalty.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 16th, 2006 at 02:57 AM]

Nevada, I'm surprised you stopped play. I'm sure you felt like you (and your crew) had made a mistake by starting with 4. I think I agree with your parenthetical comment that you shouldnt have stopped play at all. [edited comment] 10.3.3SitB addresses the failure to report and the running on the court unbeckoned, not the fact that the team was short a player. I think you might have over-thought this one. (Or maybe I have under-thought it :) , which is probably the case). This is the coach's problem. Wait for a stoppage or a TO. Of course, nothing stops you from saying "you've only got four out there coach" as you jog by. And did I understand you right that your partner was actually going to T the team that only had 4? Maybe I am going to have to think about this one some more...

[edit]

OK, I finally caught up with you. :) I knew it was me. The problem is 3-1 and the requirement of 5 if available. Yet no penalty is provided. Sorry I am so slow. :)

[Edited by cdaref on Jan 15th, 2006 at 04:48 AM]

I think that you are up to speed and grasp the problematic situation well. :)

As I re-read 3-1, it only requires 5 to begin the game. And if there are no replacements available following a DQ or injury it MUST continue with fewer than five until you get down to 1 player. I'm not sure it is illegal to play with four in a non-injury or DQ situation (of course, it doesnt make much sense to do it) per that section. There is no rule "thou shalt have five players on the floor at all times" except to begin the game. Is there? If not, then there is no penalty for it (except as above, a player is DQd or injured and there is a sub aviailable and they refuse to insert the sub then that is probably a forfeit).

Yup, there sure is. Case book play 3.1.1 says that if you have 5 available, you gotta play those 5. Same with 4...or 3...

Can the casebook "add" a rule that is not in the book? Interesting. The casebook can certainly clarify or give examples of the application of rules in the rule book, but can it add a rule that isnt explicitly in the rule book? An interesting question. Maybe that is getting a little to "lawyerly" in my source of rule analysis. But interesting none the less. I'm still going to have to think about this one. :)

Thanks for bringing this up, Nevada. Maybe I am sick in the head (well, ok, I definately am) but I like examining the rules this closely.

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.