NFHS Question 68

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

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

The problem is that A1 is not eligible at that point, for exactly the reason that we're discussing.

[Ignats75]

The problem is that A1 is not eligible at that point, for exactly the reason that we're discussing.

Semantics. I contend that A1 is an eligible player in that (s)he has not been disqualified from the game.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

Semantics. I contend that A1 is an eligible player in that (s)he has not been disqualified from the game.

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.

[Ignats75]

So making a temporary travesty of the game is better than allowing the player back in?

[Scrapper1]

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.

[OHBBREF]

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Scrapper1]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

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!

[Jurassic Referee]

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.