NFHS Question 68
 

We could not agree on the answer to this question at our association meeting this evening. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please cite references if possible. The question goes: A player who has been withdrawn may not re-enter bfore the next opportunity to substitute after the ball becomes live following his/her replacement. True or False

SECTION 3 SUBSTITUTION

ART. 4 . . . A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement.

True! But not when the ball becomes live. It 's when time actually runs off the game clock. You can have a live ball without time running off the clock. As in a throw-in after a dead ball. A team could call a time out during a throw in without time running of the clock. The ball was live during the throw in but no time ran off before the time out. The sub that came out still can't come in until time runs off the clock.

Rule 3 Section 3 Art. 4 page 23 Rule Book

If you didn't type your question wrong then the answer to your question is False.

It is a poorly written question. The statement as written is true because the team member certainly may not reenter before then. However, there is one additional requirement that also has to be met -- time coming off the clock. This part is not included in the statement. So the test question is incomplete, but not incorrect, does that make it false? Who knows, who cares what the NFHS answer is? Just know the rule and apply it properly during the game.

This is one of the two that I missed according to the NFHS answer key.

Correct, time must come off the clock. The ball is live during a throw-in, etc. So time must come off the clock.... so the answer is falso.

This is one of the two that I missed according to the NFHS answer key.[/QUOTE]

How did you answer this question on the test?

As I wrote above who cares what the NFHS answer is? The point is to help people understand the rule, not match the federation answer key.

This is why discussion of the exam questions on this forum is such a controversial topic. I try to help people learn, not just provide answers.

Let's look at this statement in a different way.

Can anyone provide an example in which a player who has been withdrawn MAY re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the ball becomes live following his/her replacement?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Common Sense?
 

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

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.

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.

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."

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:confused:

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."


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.

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.

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.

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.

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! :)

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.

If the player hadda become ill or injured instead of fouling out, would you still insist that they play with four then?

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.

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. ...

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?

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.

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.

<b> </b>

Isn't there an interp where a team has 5 players, one gets hurt, the coach comes on the floor, and the team has to play with 4 until the next opportunity to substitute? Isn't that close enough to the same thing? Maybe my mind is going.

That was exactly what I was thinking of when I posted this is post #22 of this thread: