Subs on an injury
 

A1 has possession of the ball and gets inadvertently poked in the eye. The referee does not call a foul but stops play when it is recognized that A1 is injured. Trainer/coaches do NOT come on the playing floor. Before play resumes players A6 and B6, who were at the table waiting to sub in, are allowed to sub for A2 and B1. Should these subs be allowed? A1 stays in the game.

There's a timeout. Why wouldn't they be allowed in? :confused:

Substitutions can be made anytime the clocked is stopped and the ball is dead. It makes no difference why the clock is stopped.

Thanks for the replies. The situation happend at an AAU game today in CT. The subs were allowed in. The refs then conferred for a moment. The subs were then removed from the game and the original players put back on the floor.Play resumed. I don't know why the refs did that. I looked in my IAABO rule book and could not find a reason not to allow the subs either.

IAABO has their own set of rules now?:confused:

No they do not.

IAABO prints a bound book that contains amongst IAABO specific material, an official reproduction of the NHFS rules book, an official reproduction of the NFHS case book, and an IAABO Official's Manual for Crews of Two and Three.

Might've been playing NCAA rules. . .

Oh, OK. They don't have their own rules, but they have their very own mechanics.

For the past two school years, IAABO printed its own two-persons mechanics book. The only difference between IAABO and NFHS was the timeout positioning of the officials; IAABO still had the administering official go to the spot of the throw-in and the non-administering officials going to the division line. But the NFHS is going back to that position this year.

MTD, Sr.

Yes the mechanic differences between FED and IAABO are so drastic that I pray for OT just so I can hope to feel comfortable with the different mechanics by the end of a game when working a non IAABO assigned game in my area...:rolleyes:

Look, the differences between IAABO mechanics and FED mechanics are so minuscule that to lament IAABO for having their own mechanics is pure hubris.

In fact one could argue that the mechanical differences found state to state or even region to region are more than the differences found between IAABO and "pure" FED.

The only mechanical difference that I can recall was the 2 man time out procedure, which incidentally the FED changed back to the "IAABO" way.

The entire philosophy behind IAABO is to have a consistent set of mechanics no matter where you are, which I would think you would agree is a laudable goal.

That's a very laudable goal. Of course, that's also exactly why the NFHS issues their own <b>OFFICIALS MANUAL</b> every two years. It's too bad that certain officials groups won't participate in the FED's goal of having a country-wide consistent set of mechanics.

Actually it is not too bad. The NF does not expect all their mechanics to be followed and frankly if NF did have such an expectation (which they do not by the way) they need to be more detailed. I may not agree with everything that IAABO does, but they do a better job than what the NF does as it relates to mechanics and teaching those mechanics. Too much of the NF Officials Manual is subject for interpretation and does not cover loose ends. I realize that you think the NF is God and they cannot do anything wrong, but if the NF wants things to be followed better, they need to do a better job with that manual you seem to love so much. ;)

Peace

1) Please elaborate. Exactly <b>how</b> does IAABO do a better job teaching mechanics? What exactly do they do differently and better than, say, my association who uses the OFFICIALS MANUAL?

2) Examples of those loose ends, please, to back that statement up. Also let me know how IAABO covers those same loose ends.

Then what's the point in having it? :confused:

Well, from answers so far, IAABO reprints the NFHS rule and case books, but has their very own <b>"IAABO-specific"</b> mechanics manual. Also apparently IAABO has their own IAABO-specific mechanics manual because IAABO "does a better job than what the NF does as it relates to mechanics and teaching those mechanics".

But.... the IAABO mechanics book is now basically exactly the <b>same</b> as the FED Officials Manual, according to other posters.

Kinda confusing, ain't it?:confused: