I don't view it as setting aside the rules. The rules say you must play with 5 if you have them. The rules say you can't come back in until the clock runs. Either way, you are "settng aside a rule". I'm just saying that my judgement would be that it would be better all the way around to allow the player to come back in in this scenario.

That's just it. I don't believe that this team member is currently eligible precisely because in order to get him into the game a rule would need to be waved. To me that means that he isn't eligible.

Wave hello to the rule? Wave goodbye to the rule?

Sigh.....if Chuck was alive, he'd roll over in his grave.

If a starter gets injured in warmups, you have to <b>waive</b> a rule too in order to get a sub in for him without penalty. Again, what's the difference- philosophically speaking?

Dang! And it wasn't a typo. :( I just booted it. An obvious example of why I could never fill Mr. Spelling Guy's shoes. No matter how small they are! :eek:

Your post did amuse me though. :)

Not to the point where you'd try to answer it though, eh?:D

In the case of the injured starter you are not waiving a rule, only a penalty, and you are doing so according to another rule which states to do that. So you are actually enforcing a rule which trumps another one, not waiving a rule at all.

If the designated starter is not ill or injured and the team may still make a change and replace him with an eligible team member according to the rules, provided that they are willing to accept the prescribed penalty. There is no rule which specifically bars this other team member from entering the game at this point.

In the substitution scenario, there is a rule which specifically prevents this team member from becoming a player at this time. There is no penalty provided if the team wishes to break it. They simply are not permitted to do it.

The difference in philosophy is the same as wearing an illegal jersey or an illegal undershirt. The first one can be done at the expense of a technical foul, the second may not be worn period and there is no penalty provided in the rules. The kid simply can't play.

In my opinion, that is the difference.

This raises an interesting question. When one of the five players for Team A fouls out in the fourth quarter, the only other team member on the bench is a kid who is wearing an illegal undershirt. For whatever reason, the kid refuses to remove the item when both he and the coach are told the he may not participate while wearing it. Is this team member eligible or not? Do you continue the game with four players for Team A? Do you assess a technical foul for failure to replace a DQ'd player within 30 seconds? Do you then forfeit the game when the coach says that he still won't be replacing the disqualified player?

Dan,
Are you wondering where all your hair went? :D

Or.....
http://www.1000smilies.com/animated/bomb.gif

Btw, you need a haircut. It's a little longer than normal.

No, I know where my hair went, I have to pour liquid plumber down the shower drain once a month.

Why don't you save it and knit Woody a sweater?

That guy bears a striking resemblance to this one.
[IMG]http://www.collina.8k.com/cgi-bin/fr...6/collina6.jpg[/IMG]

Now why doesn't that work?

Dan,
I don't know a way to view what you did in that post to make it work. If I click on quote, I can't see your quote of me.

So please explain why my post isn't getting the same result as yours.