You make the call.
 

High School Game

After halftime the first horn has sounded. All 5 players come out to start the 3rd quarter. The second horn sounds . As the offficial is getting ready to administer the throw in, the coach from the "A" team informs the officials that one of the players #32 has already played 6 quarters between the JV and Varsity games and can't play anymore and that he needs to sub # 32. The oppossing coach says that a sub can't be made without penalty because a sub wasn't ready and didn't report before the first horn. What do you do by rule?

By rule, we as officials aren't concerned with the number of quarters a player has played. By rule, we are not concerned with the eligibility (due to playing time, or grades, or any "off-the-court" issues) of any player. By rule, the kid can't be subbed out unless a sub had already reported before the warning horn sounded 15 seconds before the end of the intermission.

In real life, I'm going to appeal to Coach B's better nature and ask him not to wreck a kid's future eligibility for no reason. (He'd have to be a real jerk to refuse.) In real life, if there WAS a sub at the table in time, then I'm going to "realize" that the wrong kid subbed out.

If neither of those options is available, I think the kid has to be considered a player until the first opportunity to sub.

1. There is no 6 quarter rule in the NFHS book, but there may be in your local area or league.

2. In my area we are instructed that the game officials are not to worry about such a requirement. The school administrators handle it and if they can't agree, they take it to the state office. We simply play the game. However, your area may be different and you have to follow what your people tell you to enforce. IOW it may be your job to deal with such a thing where you are.

3. There is no penalty in the book for a late substitution. The official is simply not supposed to allow it. What if the official does allow it?

4. There are ways around this issue that fit within the rules. The coach may request and be granted a time-out prior to the ball becoming live to start the quarter and then he may legally substitute for his player. This would prevent a forfeit or the kid being punished by the league for playing illegally.

The time out is the key in this play. We don't want the player to sacrifice his/her next game. So we need a sub legally. The only was is to tell the coach of the A team to call a time out and replace the player.

The play that I listed happened to one of my friends in a high school game. He assessed a T. On the basis that the opposing coach had a valid argument. I wanted to post this thinking this could come up somewhere else.

Time out allows subs to come in that weren't in the game before time ran of the clock.

I'd have to say that your friend was incorrect to assess a technical foul. Technical fouls are based upon a specific rule being broken, not upon whether or not a coach has a valid argument.

In checking the book for you (and your friend), the ONLY rules basis that I could possibly see for assessing a T here are:

10-1-5 . . . Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
...
b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play.

and

10-3-6 . . . Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.


Both of those would be a stretch.

So I must ask, to whom did your friend charge the technical foul? Was it to the player, to the team, to the head coach?

There was no way by rule he could have assessed a T. However he assessed a administrative team T for failure to have all the players returning to the floor @ the same time.

http://www.dumbplumber.com/sitebuild...s/plumber2.gif

This response dedicated to Tony. Or is it Tiny?

I agree with you about the T, and furthermore while I don't believe that his rationale was a correct one since all the team members who were legally in the game at the time did return to the floor at approximately the same time, the official tried to do what he thought was best for the game. In other words he made an error while trying to do the right thing. I'm not going to condemn an official for that.

If I were the assignor of this official, I would advise the official that in the future if this ever comes up again that he should charge a time-out to the offending team and get someone in there to replace the player during that stoppage, if the league truly cares about this administrative regulation. Then I would make him work a freshmen girls games for me next week as his punishment! ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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?

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.:D

Well, JR, I have three things for you:
1. Perhaps we should give Mr. Opposing Coach the whistle and see how he does! :D

2. I advocated the time-out method in my very first post in this thread. Am I to understand that that is how you would handle it? :)

3. I cited the technical foul rules for delaying the game by preventing the making of the ball promptly live in my second post in this thread. Are you advocating applying those since the coach's substitution question held up the administration of the throw-in? :p

Rule 2 Section 3


I agree that I would allow the substitution. Eligibility rules are not part of the NFHS rulebook. Therefore, any reasonable decision made by the Referee would be correct. I was taught in school that there are Correct Decisions; Good Decisions and Right Decisions. This is probably one of those times where there is more than one correct one. In reading these responses, I think that charging the team with a timeout is the Right Call..

Leave it alone, you have no jurisdiction in that situation.

Really. How do you know if Coach A is incorrect and is just working you? Especially if #32 is the star of Team B. I'd leave that alone and let Team A file an official protest with their State Association.

1) I'm in favor of all coaches having to referee a serious game at least once a year....with me critiquing them.:)

2) Did you ever advocate simply following the existing rules and informing the coach that he <b>wasn't</b> going to be allowed to get a sub in but he <b>was</b> going to be charged with a TO for stopping the game to ask the questions? Getting a sub in after that charged TO kinda follows that course naturally anyway imo, whether you have to tell the coach that he can do that or not.

3) I'd perform a self-orchidectomy on myself before I'd call a technical foul in that situation. Hell, if I even thought of doing so, I'd probably slap myself upside the head.

And the best part is......later you can logically explain what you've done and why you've done it, with all the accompanying little rules citations, to the league/state body, as well as your assignor or rules interpreter... if any of them ask. And....meanwhile, the opposing pissed-off coach hasn't any grounds at all for any kind of a complaint against you.

You'd remove all your own orchids? They're so hard to grow, why would you get rid of them?

[QUOTE]We can't leave it alone. We have a sub who needs to come in. The question is how to get the sub in legally?

[QUOTE=Gimlet25id]And the answer is to use rule 3-3-1.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]Well thats what we want to use. How ever the was not @ the table before the first warning horn. The opposing coach know that you just can't bring a sub in that hasn't reported unless for injury, blood, contact, uniform. In this case none of this happenned. So in the case book 3.3.1 sit B covers what to do.

Just tell the coach to call a time out and then he can get he sub in. We all know the the 6 Quarter rule isn't in the NFHS book. However if the opposing coach doesn't care about it and thinks that the coach shouldn't have allowed the player to start the quarter then his argument is valid that the official can't just allow a sub in with out a TO being called.

[QUOTE=Gimlet25id]Those are all reasons a player is (at least temporarily) not eligible to play. So is the "6 quarters rule". Bring in the sub. Tell the complaining coach to take it up with the conference.

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!

Finally another vote for common sense. :)

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).

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).

Sorry, Coach Norman Dale, but you can't do that.
 

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.

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. . .

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.

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

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

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".

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.

Man this thread is confusing.

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

The ruling posted by Nevada said "It would serve <b>no</b> purpose to repeat the penalty or <b>disqualify the coach</b>". You then asked if we maybe <b>should</b> 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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

That's one of the Golden Rules of Officiating, which can also be unfortunate at times.

Scrapper,
I just went through the new Case Book for the 2006-07 season and read all of the rulings with a * because that means that they are new or have changed. I do this before each new season. Look what I found for you! ;)

FORFEITURE
*5.4.1 SITUATION A: A1 commits his/her fifth personal foul. Both the head coach and player are properly notified. Team A has substitutes available but the head coach from Team A does not send a substitute to the table within the 30-second time limit. The Team A head coach is assessed a technical foul. The head coach still does not send a substitute to the table. RULING: The official should forfeit the contest to the opposing team for the head coach delaying the contest and attempting to make a travesty of the game. COMMENT: The referee may forfeit a game if any player, team member, bench personnel or coach fails to comply with any technical foul penalty.

The underlined words still seem to give the official some leeway, but I guess it's pretty clear what they want you to do. Thanks, Nevadaref.

That's because if there is a crowd at the door with a noose, and you would have to award the game to the visiting team via forfeit, you need to have room to use your judgment.

This is interesting because I had the exact thing happen in a game last night. Team A is playing with a short bench, 7 players. two players fouls out and with 4 minutes left in the game a third gets his second Direct T. Coach goes off on my partner so she T'd him up. Coach would not leave it alone even after I asked him to refrain and if he could not then he could watch the remainder from outside the gym doors. I asked him to sit down and relax, but as this is not a requirement in NCAA he goes off on me now telling me I can't tell him to do something that is not part of the rules. I informed him I could because he was being disruptive and gave him his second T. Perhaps I could have been more leaniant. Short story long Assistant was not willing to sit on bench as head coach so the game was over.

Are you saying that the assistant was not willing to coach the team? Or are you saying that the assistant was not willing to be "seatbelted" while acting as head coach?

If the assistant was unwilling to coach, then it seems like that person shouldn't be on the coaching staff.

The second question made me wonder if the assistant gets to use the coaching box after the head coach is ejected in NCAA. I know in HS the answer is "no". But can the "acting head coach" use the box in NCAA? I looked through Rule 10, but couldn't find anything that says so. Is there an AR anywhere that addresses this?

He was not confident enough to act as Head coach. Coaching is voluntary and not a paid position in this league. NCAA does not seatbelt head coaches, so if the Assistant is acting as the head coach, they get the use of the box.

In NCAA even if you T the coach he does not get seatbelted. So if they are disrupting the game you give them 2 and problem is solved.

Is that written somewhere? Rule reference or AR?

That one, I knew! :)

Rule 10 ..... Bench restrictions I believe says the Head coach has use of the box. I take it that when the head coach is ejected the Assistant takes over duties of Head coach and therefore would have use of the box. I can't find any other references, so I may be wrong.

The HS rule says the same thing, but it's interpreted to mean that ONLY the head coach can use the box; not the assistant if/when he takes over. So if the college rule reads the same way, do we interpret it the same way?

That is only because of the reason the head coach is being replaced. When even a single T is received by the HS coach, the box is lost. In NCAA, the box is not lost.

So, any assistant inherits the privileges and restrictions left to them by the departing coach. In the NCAA, the box remains. In HS, the box is lost because it was lost by the departing coach.

If the departing coach leaves due to illness, the assistant wil have the use of the box unless it has otherwise been lost.

In HS? I don't think so!