You make the call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The rules allow for a team to play with less than 5 players (without my books with me so not sure if playing with less than 5 requires having all but 4 DQ'ed), but I'm thinking the substitute at the table requirement is necessary for a sub to enter, but is there anything that prevents the player from going to the bench and A playing with 4 until the next substitution opportunity (if smart a foul upon the ball being inbounded). Just thinking through options.

A team must play with five if they have five who are eligible, however there are reasons other than DQ which would make a team member ineligible to enter the game.

For example, a team has only six on the roster. The coach subs in A6 who has four fouls for A2. During the ensuing throw-in and prior to the ball being touched inbounds, A6 is charged with his fifth foul. The clock correctly did not start. Clearly A6 must leave the game, but since no time has come off the clock A2 cannot return to the game. In this situation Team A would have to play with only four players until the next opportunity to substitute. There would be no penalty to Team A for this.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A team must play with five if they have five who are eligible, however there are reasons other than DQ which would make a team member ineligible to enter the game.

For example, a team has only six on the roster. The coach subs in A6 who has four fouls for A2. During the ensuing throw-in and prior to the ball being touched inbounds, A6 is charged with his fifth foul. The clock correctly did not start. Clearly A6 must leave the game, but since no time has come off the clock A2 cannot return to the game. In this situation Team A would have to play with only four players until the next opportunity to substitute. There would be no penalty to Team A for this.

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!

[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).

[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. . .

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 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".