Illegal Substitution

[Nevadaref]

If you want to be known as a referee who doesn't enforce the rules properly, then don't make that call. If you want to follow your own personal philosophy and think that you know better then the members of the NFHS committee then send the kid back to the table and do nothing about it. Rules enforcement is only POE #5 this season.

[JRutledge]

I do not understand why we must use the letter of the law in this case, but in the thread of timeouts, there is all talk about using common sense. I guess some people like to pick and choose when they want to "know the rules" and other times when they want to apply a common sense method. I guess the POE does not cover that scenario.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

I guess Kurt what's-his-name says to send the kid back to the table.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I guess Kurt what's-his-name says to send the kid back to the table.

I am sure that Kurt would say to use common sense in this scenario and to rule with the spirit of the rule. If the kid puts one foot (or even both feet) on the court and then goes back, let it go.

If the kid goes all the way to the FT line and taps the player he is replacing on the shoulder, then issue a T.

If the ball is dead, get it fixed. If the ball is live, issue a T.

etc.

And, yes, there's judgment involved (what about 2 steps, 3 steps, 4 steps, etc. onto the floor). Deal with it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I am sure that Kurt would say to use common sense in this scenario and to rule with the spirit of the rule.

I had a very similar play happen to me in a juco game, where before a throw-in, the C waved in a couple of subs, lost track of how many went off, and pointed to the T to administer the throw-in. The throw-in occured with no pressure, when on the other end of the court, one of the players realized they wern't supposed to be on the floor, and ran off. We stopped play, made sure we were finally correct, and re-started. Afterwards, our supervisor told us we handled it correctly. Of course, it would've been better if that damn C would've counted correctly before letting the throw-in happen , but since it was the crew's fault, common sense was the phrase he used in agreeing we get it fixed, and get the ball back in play as soon as possible without issuing a penalty.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I had a very similar play happen to me in a juco game, where before a throw-in, the C waved in a couple of subs, lost track of how many went off, and pointed to the T to administer the throw-in. The throw-in occured with no pressure, when on the other end of the court, one of the players realized they wern't supposed to be on the floor, and ran off. We stopped play, made sure we were finally correct, and re-started. Afterwards, our supervisor told us we handled it correctly. Of course, it would've been better if that damn C would've counted correctly before letting the throw-in happen , but since it was the crew's fault, common sense was the phrase he used in agreeing we get it fixed, and get the ball back in play as soon as possible without issuing a penalty.

How does that mesh with the philosophy espoused here?

9.2.5 SITUATION: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

BTW the NCAA says the same and even issued a bulletin a couple of years ago specifying this point.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How does that mesh with the philosophy espoused here?

9.2.5 SITUATION: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

BTW the NCAA says the same and even issued a bulletin a couple of years ago specifying this point.

Seems apples and petunias, but admittedly I'm getting old.

So is what you're espousing that if your partner waves a sub for team A in, and as sub approaches team member he's replacing, you brain-fade and administer the throw in-your remedy for your mistake is call a T on A for 6 players on the floor?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How does that mesh with the philosophy espoused here?

9.2.5 SITUATION: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

BTW the NCAA says the same and even issued a bulletin a couple of years ago specifying this point.

I'm not sure our two plays are equal (I prefer apples and bowling balls), but I see what you're trying to get at.

My point is my supervisor considered how we handled our play correct. I didn't know that until after the fact. He has also said many times if we apply the rules, he has no problem backing us up. Which, obviously, is a slight contradiction because there were 6 players on the floor, and we discovered it, so we could have, by rule, issued the T. So, at least in this specific instance with this specific supervisor, "common sense" trumps "strict rules interpretation". Do all supervisors feel this way? Probably not. Can I use what I feel is common sense instead of strict rules interpretation all the time? Absolutely not. So where is that line drawn? I'm still trying to figure it out.