Lead Administers FT while Trail is substituting
 

I was watching a JV game (2 man crew) this past weekend and saw an unusual situation. I am wondering if the refs handled it correctly (NFHS).

About a minute left in the game A40-B39, both teams are in the bonus. A1 is bringing the ball up court and B1 fouls A1. The official is reporting the foul at the table and the other official is getting everything ready to shoot the one and one. This is B1's 5th foul and the table notifies the calling official. The table just verbally notifies the official, who turns and signals "5" to his partner. B1 is standing by the HC of B. The official notifies the HC that a sub is needed and notfies B1 since he is standing right there. I see a signal from the ref to start the 20 second clock. Meanwhile, everyone has lined up on the foul line and the other ref has bounced the ball to A1 to shoot the 1+1. B has 3 players along the lane while A has 2. The foul shot misses and A3 gets the rebound. The ref at the table realizes the game has started up and and sees team A in control of the ball. At this point the ref at the table blows the ball dead. The clock did not start because of the substitution that was in progress. B6 was then substituted for B1. There was no time correction. The game proceeded at this point with team A inbounding the ball.

The lead ref missed the 5 sign from the partner, did not wait until partner was in position and put the ball into play. In NFHS, I don't think any of the play could be canceled and done over, so I think they got it right - at least they did not complicate an already messy situation.

Comments?

This happened to me also in a JV game or an AAU game - as I was waiting for the coach to send in the sub for DQ my partner put the ball in play. IMO the game cannot continue until the sub comes in for the DQ'ed player so whatever happens prior to that is erased except for unsporting behavior/fighting/dead ball contact type Ts.

All though the partner missed the communication with the Trail. The player received the merited free throw. A's ball for throw in.

I observed an identical situation. The only difference, is that Team A, once they secured the rebound from missed free throw, A4 ended up scoring while the substitution was taking place.

I disagree, this is not a correctable error situation - are you saying that if A1 had made the FT you would erase it? Seems to me to just be a goof/lack of communication, give the ball to A nearest the spot when it was blown dead and after the DQ'd player is replaced....

yep
 

This is just an officials error, I have actually seen this happen in a 3man, not sure how but it did. Since the merited free throw was attempted just resume play with POI.

Yes I would erase a made FT.

B is given the opportunity by rule to sub for their DQ'ed player. That didn't happen in this case.

Again, my opinion.

True they should be given an opportunity to sub, however, there is no provision to erase any activity based on a screw-up by the officials...think of an AP situation where it is A's posession, by rule they should be given the opportunity to inbound the ball. If the officials give it to B and the throw-in is completed, there is nothing you can do about it at that point, you just give the next AP to A...similar because neither the OP nor this situation is a correctable error.....I understand what you are saying, but there is just no provision to do this...

I think this was an NCAA interp issued in a mid-season bulletin a couple years ago. The ruling (I think) was that the ball never became live because the substitution process hadn't been completed. But at the HS level, I don't think we have such a ruling.

That's what I was going to say. "Do it over" in NCAA; play on in FED.

That is good to know for NCAA, thanks!

sigh... I was really hoping to see this thread take off... and then you had to jump in with an approved ruling instead of wild speculation and personal opinion... ;)

btw... I would do it the same under nfhs.

Where's OS/JMO when you need him/her?:D

Posting under the <i>Nom de Net</i> of Dan_ref.....

I don't actually HAVE the approved ruling. I merely SEEM to remember it. Speculate away. :)