The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 12:28pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
So making a temporary travesty of the game is better than allowing the player back in?
What's the travesty here? The team is using all of its eligible players. If they only had 4 kids because of disqualifications, they would still play with 4 players -- all of their eligible players -- and that wouldn't be a travesty, would it?

The player who is subbed out is simply not eligible to return until the next opportunity to substitute after the clock is properly started. I don't think that's even debatable. There's no ambiguity at all in the rule. So you make the team play with whatever eligible players they have. Then at the next whistle, he can come back in.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 12:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohio, cincinnati
Posts: 813
Travesty of the Game?

Wow that is a stretch -

But the player is inelegible to return until time runs off the clock i think that is pretty much black and white
I have seen it happen.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 01:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimlet25id
If you didn't type your question wrong then the answer to your question is False.
The original question *was* typed incorrectly ("bfore" instead of "before") ... but the correct answer still is False! Oh, and Scrapper and Ignats need not worry about this one as the distinction I drew is not a semantic one. Most of us no doubt gave the same meaning to "bfore" and "before."
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 03:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 23
What

If the player is withdrawn doesn't that mean he or she went back to the bench?? Then they could still enter the game at any time, I think
__________________
That's all i got to say bout that
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 08:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankHtown
Another example is A1 fouls B1. During dead ball, B6 subs for B1. You hand the ball to B3 for the throw -in. Horn sounds. It's the dreaded 7th team foul on Team A. You need to bring B1 back on the floor to shoot 1 + 1.
Good answer, Frank! This play is from last year's Interps. I didn't even think of it.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 1: A1 is fouled by B1 late in the second quarter. It is a common foul and the seventh Team B foul. The bonus situation is not recognized by the scorer or the officiating crew, and the Team A coach substitutes A6 for A1. A6 is beckoned onto the floor and A1 goes to the team bench. The scorer recognizes the error and sounds the horn (a) just before or (b) just after the administering official hands the ball to A2 for a throw-in. RULING: This is a correctable-error situation and falls within the proper timeframe for a correction. In both (a) and (b), A6 leaves the game with A1 re-entering to shoot the bonus free throw. Play is resumed as after any free-throw attempt(s). If the second free throw is successful and the coach desires, A6 may re-enter the contest. (2-10-1a; 2-10-6)

Of course, it wouldn't apply to our debate over the NFHS test question because this is a correctable error situation and it says on the top of the exam, "No errors or mistakes are involved unless noted."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignats75
A6 is beckoned on the floor as a sub during a 1 and 1 free throw. A only has 6 players eligible. During the first free throw, which was successful, A6 (or A2-A5) needs to be substituted....i.e. sudden bloody nose, turned ankle on one of those asinine false rebounds when players don't pay attention to what the administering official says, dead ball foul that causes A6 to foul out et al.

Since A must field a full team if there are players eligible, I would allow A1 to come back into the game.

Every single one of those scenarios has happened during a game I worked at some point in my career. Thankfully none of them involvred the substitution issue because I'm sure the B coach would argue about it.
Unfortunately, you would be incorrect. As others have told you A1 is not eligible to become a player at this time. Team A must temporarily continue with four. Sorry that you don't personally like it, but that is the correct application of the NFHS rules.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 09:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I don't think it's semantics at all. The rules specifically say that the player is not allowed to return to the game. That means she or he is ineligible. The team will have to play with 4 until the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has properly started.
Not so. Most rules are written with the assumption that there are no complicating factors. In this case, one rule says the player must stay out while another rule requires 5 players. To get to the right answer, you must consider the intent and purpose of the rules....not just the letter.

The sub-must-wait rule is not meant to require a team play with fewer than 5 players. It is meant to prevent teams from pulling players out-and-in on purpose for an advantage....particularly regarding free throws and rebounding near the end of the game.

Example...team A down by 4 with 30 seconds to go with team B's worst FT shooter on the line. Both teams would really like to have their best rebounders in the game at that point....particularly team A. Now, if B should make the FT, A would like to put their best ball handlers and shooters in the game....not rebonders. Team B would like to ensure they get the rebound if their is a miss but if there is a make, they want their best defenders in.

If it were allowed, you'd see a lot of end game subbing going on with players going out before the FT and coming right back in after the FT. The rules makers don't want such musical chairs games going on so they limit the reentry of removed playres.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 09:18pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Not so. Most rules are written with the assumption that there are no complicating factors. In this case, one rule says the player must stay out while another rule requires 5 players.
Camron, I really respect your knowledge and opinion, but I think you're simply wrong on this one. The rule does not require that 5 players play. The rule requires that 5 players play if 5 are available. And in this case, one player is clearly not available.

If Team A is down to 5 players due to injury or disqualification or whatever, and A1 twists an ankle that requires the trainer to come on the court, are you going to allow A1 to remain in the game if Team A doesn't have any TO's left? I don't think I am going to allow that.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 09, 2006, 09:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Camron, I really respect your knowledge and opinion, but I think you're simply wrong on this one. The rule does not require that 5 players play. The rule requires that 5 players play if 5 are available. And in this case, one player is clearly not available.
I have a great deal of respect for Camron too, but I also disagree with him on this point. He makes a good argument based upon the spirit and intent of the rules, however, I find it unconvincing. I believe that this is a case of when the black and white, clearly written rule must be applied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
If Team A is down to 5 players due to injury or disqualification or whatever, and A1 twists an ankle that requires the trainer to come on the court, are you going to allow A1 to remain in the game if Team A doesn't have any TO's left? I don't think I am going to allow that.
They could take an excessive time-out to allow this player to remain in the game. Of course, they would also have to take the accompanying team technical foul!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 02:06am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I have a great deal of respect for Camron too, but I also disagree with him on this point. He makes a good argument based upon the spirit and intent of the rules, however, I find it unconvincing. I believe that this is a case of when the black and white, clearly written rule must be applied.


From the language of case book play 3.2SitB--"A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution".

Sure sounds to me also that the spirit and intent of the rule is exactly what Camron said. If there's a sub available, let' em in.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 08:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
From the language of case book play 3.2SitB--"A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution".

Sure sounds to me also that the spirit and intent of the rule is exactly what Camron said. If there's a sub available, let' em in.
Why? Did someone become ill or injured on this play? Nope, someone fouled out. That's not an extenuating circumstance. That's his own d@mn fault. They play with four.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 08:28am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Why? Did someone become ill or injured on this play? Nope, someone fouled out. That's not an extenuating circumstance. That's his own d@mn fault. They play with four.
If the player hadda become ill or injured instead of fouling out, would you still insist that they play with four then?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Posts: 718
Nevada obviously is a literalist. Not a criticism, just an observation. If its not specifically spelled out in the rules, he's not going to act. Thats his philosophy, and its certainly acceptable. I'm sure he is an excellent referee. The mere fact he is on here shows that he takes this avocation seriously.

While I probably don't have the experience he has, as I am only a 4th year referee, I was taught and instructed that there are times too numerous to count where a strict application of the rules doesn't apply due to contradictions and/or vaguaries in the language of the rules. Thats the whole reason for Rule 2 section 3.

I will ask our rules interpreter and my assignors at our next association meeting (if I remember). But I am pretty sure, based on past experience and exposure to their thinking, that they would allow the re-sub.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 09:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
While my stance on this may seem harsh, please consider that I am striving to do what the NFHS has instructed.

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
...
5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. ...
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 09:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
If the player hadda become ill or injured instead of fouling out, would you still insist that they play with four then?
In this case, I probably would. The case play that you cited is for changing a designated starter. It is assumed that there are other eligible team members who can replace him. So all you are doing is waving the penalty for changing a starter, you are not overriding some other restriction. Afterall, even without injury or illness a starter CAN be changed, there is just a technical foul as a result.

In this case there is a rule which says that player X cannot participate at this time. Even if they take a technical foul, he still can't come in. That is why it is pretty tough for me to set this aside. I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of using my own individual philosophy and not following the NFHS rules!

BTW in the injured starter scenario, what you do if there were no other team members on the roster? Say the team only has five and one of them breaks his ankle during warmups. Do you forfeit the game because a team MUST start the game with five players or do you call it extenuating circumstances and allow the contest to proceed with this team only fielding four players?
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 09:58am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
1) In this case, I probably would. The case play that you cited is for changing a designated starter. It is assumed that there are other eligible team members who can replace him.


2) BTW in the injured starter scenario, what you do if there were no other team members on the roster? Say the team only has five and one of them breaks his ankle during warmups. Do you forfeit the game because a team MUST start the game with five players or do you call it extenuating circumstances and allow the contest to proceed with this team only fielding four players?
1) How is that different than what we're discussing? You've got an eligible team member also who can be substituted in if the rule is waived because of the extenuating circumstances. There's no difference in the rules philosophy for either situation that I can see.

2) Good question. Know what? I don't know what I'd do without knowing other circumstances. If the game meant something to the other team, or other teams, in the way of playoff aspirations, I doubt that I would go ahead and play the game. I'd follow the rules and if the league/state wants to then replay the game sometime, fine with me. If it was a meaningless game, I'd probably talk to the coaches and see what they wanted to do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFHS Question 24 MrRabbit Softball 15 Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:58pm
NFHS question #9 shipwreck Softball 6 Wed Aug 24, 2005 06:31pm
NFHS question oppool Softball 1 Fri Jan 21, 2005 05:37pm
Question #99 NFHS RookieDude Basketball 22 Thu Nov 11, 2004 01:04pm
NFHS QUESTION #40 AND #70 roadking Basketball 8 Mon Nov 08, 2004 02:02am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1