Illegal Substitution

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Excellent post. That is the problem whenever we talk about common sense. What some feel is common sense, others will not. (JR has even advocated on this forum that following a plainly written rule is common sense! )

What one supervisor believes is the right thing to do, another will say was clearly incorrect.

All I can tell you is that is the human factor in sports. Strange stuff happens, decisions are made by people and that makes the game worth watching. Otherwise a computer could always tell us who would win. What would be the fun of that?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JR has even advocated on this forum that following a plainly written rule is common sense!

And, for the most part, he would be right.