NFHS Question 68

[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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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?

[Nevadaref]

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?

[Ignats75]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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. ...