New Interps Sitch #12

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It seems more likely that the standard is simply what the action follows.

In fact, after reading Situation 12 again, I'm sure that that is the standard which is being applied in 10.1.9 because that is exactly what the new interp is saying. If the very same action occurs following a time-out or intermission it is a T, but if it takes place after a substitution then it isn't. So we now know for sure what is the criterion.

I will have to join the others in stating that this is ridiculous. The NFHS is picking a poor criterion. Either the player should be allowed to return during playing action or he shouldn't, but whether or not he can't shouldn't depend upon what happened before he came back.

Why not say that he can return in the first half without penalty, but not in the second half? The rationale would be that his team's goal is at the opposite end of the court, so he would be returning on the defensive end in the first half, but on the offensive end in the second half.

Sometimes the NFHS engages in silliness.