You make the call.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

Reminds me of the movie "Hoosiers", player was benched for discipline and when his player fouled out the coach did not allow the last player on the bench to enter. Good Times!

I had actually just watched Hoosiers the day before I made my post about playing with 4. That's where I got the idea, granted at the time I didn't have my book and couldn't remember if it was allowed for by rule (not something I've spent much time reviewing as I've never had a situation that a coach has wanted to play with only 4 or even been forced to play with 4).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I had actually just watched Hoosiers the day before I made my post about playing with 4. That's where I got the idea, granted at the time I didn't have my book and couldn't remember if it was allowed for by rule (not something I've spent much time reviewing as I've never had a situation that a coach has wanted to play with only 4 or even been forced to play with 4).

This is from last season's Simplified & Illustrated:
5-4-1 The coach has already been charged with a technical foul for failure to replace a disqualified player with a substitute available. It would serve no purpose to repeat the penalty or disqualify the coach. In this situation, the referee has support and authority to forfeit the game. Any act which makes a travesty of the game may result in forfeiture. However, a game should not be forfeited for the action of spectators.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is from last season's Simplified & Illustrated:
5-4-1 The coach has already been charged with a technical foul for failure to replace a disqualified player with a substitute available. It would serve no purpose to repeat the penalty or disqualify the coach.

Are we sure it would serve no purpose? Maybe the embarassed assisstant who takes over would give us a sub. I agree that the rules would support a forfeit here, but should we toss the coach in the hope of continuing the game? Just wondering out loud. . .

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is from last season's Simplified & Illustrated:
5-4-1 The coach has already been charged with a technical foul for failure to replace a disqualified player with a substitute available. It would serve no purpose to repeat the penalty or disqualify the coach. In this situation, the referee has support and authority to forfeit the game. Any act which makes a travesty of the game may result in forfeiture. However, a game should not be forfeited for the action of spectators.

Inquisitive Minds want to see actual rules reference, any rule set that states a sub "MUST" be substituted. I have never been faced with this myself but did see a coach bench a player on my sons football team this year for discipline. He put him on the scoresheet as healthy and never played him. we have fair play rules for youth football, all kids are to play an equal amount of time per game or its 25 yard penalty if discovered.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Are we sure it would serve no purpose?

We don't matter. The NFHS issued that ruling in one of their publications. Maybe we might not like it it, but we don't have a choice if we're given explicit advice from the rulesmakers on how we should handle a situation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

Inquisitive Minds want to see actual rules reference, any rule set that states a sub "MUST" be substituted.

NFHS case book play 3.1.1-- "Team B must have 5 players participating as long as it has that number available."

The argument before has been whether a player being sat down for disciplinary purposes actually is a "sub" or not. That argument has never ended with a definitive answer afaik, just "opinions".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We don't matter. The NFHS issued that ruling in one of their publications. Maybe we might not like it it, but we don't have a choice if we're given explicit advice from the rulesmakers on how we should handle a situation.

The ruling posted by Nevadaref doesn't say we HAVE to forfeit the game. It says, "In this situation, the referee has support and authority to forfeit the game. Any act which makes a travesty of the game may result in forfeiture."

It says that the rules support a forfeit, and this act may result in a forfeit. Are you saying that we should interpret that as a mandate to forfeit after the first technical for refusing to sub? I'm just asking.

[JugglingReferee]

Man this thread is confusing.

I see mucous hanging from A-32's nose. It has blood in it. Referee-induced substitute. Play on.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The ruling posted by Nevadaref doesn't say we HAVE to forfeit the game. It says, "In this situation, the referee has support and authority to forfeit the game. Any act which makes a travesty of the game may result in forfeiture."

It says that the rules support a forfeit, and this act may result in a forfeit. Are you saying that we should interpret that as a mandate to forfeit after the first technical for refusing to sub? I'm just asking.

The ruling posted by Nevada said "It would serve no purpose to repeat the penalty or disqualify the coach". You then asked if we maybe should try tossing the coach. Iow, you're asking if we should do something that the FED has already told us not to bother to try doing.

That was my point.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

you're asking if we should do something that the FED has already told us not to bother to try doing.

Yeah, that's what I'm asking. For the reason I already stated. Maybe we can work with the embarassed assistant coach. Maybe not. But wouldn't you rather try to finish the game?

If not, fine. I'm not trying to pick a fight. It just seems like this is a case where the coach's ejection might "make the game better." No?

[Nevadaref]

Scrapper,
Just listen to JR on this. He is correct. I know that it is annoying, but he usually is.

He is an assignor and can speak from experience that when the NFHS books instruct you as the official to do something or not to do something, then that is exactly what you should do because if you are ever questioned on your actions by the governing body/league/supervisor/etc. you can point directly to the page in the book and say it says so right here. Basically, it's a CYA thing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We don't matter. The NFHS issued that ruling in one of their publications. Maybe we might not like it it, but we don't have a choice if we're given explicit advice from the rulesmakers on how we should handle a situation.

I agree. Now why doesn't that also apply to the substitution rule in the other thread?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

when the NFHS books instruct you as the official to do something or not to do something, then that is exactly what you should do because if you are ever questioned on your actions by the governing body/league/supervisor/etc. you can point directly to the page in the book and say it says so right here.

I guess I can see that. I was just trying to find a way for the kids to finish the game, instead of having the dope coach ruin it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I guess I can see that. I was just trying to find a way for the kids to finish the game, instead of having the dope coach ruin it.

The dope is part of the team. The team pays a price for that. It is their fault for having a dope as a coach. Just do your job and send him home.

You will often here someone say not to penalize the kids, but they don't understand that the adult who is misbehaving is the one who is actually hurting the kids. He is setting a poor example for them, and you would be contributing to that if you didn't enforce some kind of punishment that the kids could see. Afterall, NFHS games are a teaching environment.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

He is setting a poor example for them, and you would be contributing to that if you didn't enforce some kind of punishment that the kids could see.

Just for the record, I was not advocating withholding "some kind of punishment". I was advocating tossing the coach. I agree the coach needs to be dealt with. I was just looking for a different way of dealing with him that wouldn't end the game. I see your point above, though, and I guess I would just go ahead and forfeit it.