You make the call.

[Gimlet25id]

Can't play with 4 if there are players available. in this play the only option available to the coach who wants to sub after the first horn is to call a time out.

[Back In The Saddle]

Eligibility based on the number of quarters played is a "point not specifically covered in the rules" and the interplay between eligibility requirements and substitution rules cannot logically be inferred from the written rules.

If, in this case, rather than eligibility issues, the player were to be injured, blood was discovered on his uniform, or the scorer suddenly notified you that he had five fouls, there would be no timeout required to remove him from the game. So why require one in the case of an eligibility issue?

Though it doesn't address this issue specifically, I consider 10.5.4 situation (a) as a precedent as to how the rules committee wishes to handle a situation where a player is in the game inadvertently, and should not be. "As soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed."

A little elasticity is a good thing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Eligibility based on the number of quarters played is a "point not specifically covered in the rules" and the interplay between eligibility requirements and substitution rules cannot logically be inferred from the written rules.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If, in this case, rather than eligibility issues, the player were to be injured, blood was discovered on his uniform, or the scorer suddenly notified you that he had five fouls, there would be no timeout required to remove him from the game. So why require one in the case of an eligibility issue?

Because all of the reasons that you gave are clearly stated in the NFHS rules book as reasons that a player shall be directed to leave the game. There is no such provision for a kid who has played too many quarters by state or league adoption. I suppose that you could covertly tell the kid to untuck his jersey and then direct him to leave the game for wearing his uniform improperly. This situation calls for some creativity from the referee.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Though it doesn't address this issue specifically, I consider 10.5.4 situation (a) as a precedent as to how the rules committee wishes to handle a situation where a player is in the game inadvertently, and should not be. "As soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed."

That example applies to a player who is erroneously permitted to be in the game although his participation is contrary to the NFHS rules. It has nothing to do with his eligibility due to grades, age, or other school/league regulations.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

A little elasticity is a good thing.

Yeah, on our part. However, I have seen a team be forfeited BY THE LEAGUE because a jv kid played the first 20 seconds of the 4th quarter. So while we can sometimes be lenient, the league office may not be. Therefore, I recommend that we do what we can to get it right.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree.


Because all of the reasons that you gave are clearly stated in the NFHS rules book as reasons that a player shall be directed to leave the game. There is no such provision for a kid who has played too many quarters by state or league adoption. I suppose that you could covertly tell the kid to untuck his jersey and then direct him to leave the game for wearing his uniform improperly. This situation calls for some creativity from the referee.


That example applies to a player who is erroneously permitted to be in the game although his participation is contrary to the NFHS rules. It has nothing to do with his eligibility due to grades, age, or other school/league regulations.


Yeah, on our part. However, I have seen a team be forfeited BY THE LEAGUE because a jv kid played the first 20 seconds of the 4th quarter. So while we can sometimes be lenient, the league office may not be. Therefore, I recommend that we do what we can to get it right.

I really like the untucked jersey idea.

[Jurassic Referee]

Why is everyone so worried about taking on the responsibility for a coach's screw-up that has got absolutely nothing to do with the officials in the first place?

Keep your nose out of places where it doesn't belong.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why is everyone so worried about taking on the responsibility for a coach's screw-up that has got absolutely nothing to do with the officials in the first place?

Keep your nose out of places where it doesn't belong.

That's kind of a cop out answer, JR.

Now tell us how you would handle it, if the situation confronted you during a game. Take the OP situation in which one coach directly addresses you about it. What are you going to do?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's kind of a cop out answer, JR.

Now tell us how you would handle it, if the situation confronted you during a game. Take the OP situation in which one coach directly addresses you about it. What are you going to do?

How is that a cop out answer, Nevada? I'm saying that officials shouldn't ever interject themselves into these stoopid situations that are governed by regulations that have got nothing to do with us. That's my opinion- not a cop-out.

And are you telling me that you don't know what the substitution rules are? Gee, the opposing coach certainly knows the correct applicable rules, doesn't he? Maybe he can train you. He's probably already asking you why the game ain't going on and whether the other coach is going to be charged with a TO because he stopped the game for something that isn't a correctable error.

Of course, if you hadda followed the rules from the git-go and charged the coach with that TO for delaying the game by asking his questions, he could have legally put his sub in anyway at the end of that TO, couldn't he? If a coach doesn't know that he can sub at the end of a TO, then maybe he needs the opposing coach to teach him that too. The opposing coach seems to be the only one in the gym that knows the rules anyway.