Free Throw Shooter

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Texref

The NCAA rule book leaves no room for discussion on the situation.

Rule 3-1-2: The team may continue to play with fewer than five players when all other squad members are not eligible or able to play

Rule 3-4-14: A player who has been withdrawn or replaced by a substitute may reenter the game at the next opportunity to substitute, provided that the game clock has been properly started after the withdrawal or replacement.

Rule 4-51: Player: A player is one of five or fewer members of a team's personnel who is legally on the playing court to participate

Rule 4-65: Team Member: A team member is a member of the bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

Based on those rulings, if this play were to happen in a college game, one of the four remaining players on the floor would have to shoot the free throws and they would play with 4 until the next opportunity to sub in the 5th player.

I don't know if the High School ruling is the same as I'm not sure of the language in the rule book.

TexRef:

The NFHS rules say the same thing and all NFHS Casebook Plays and NCAA Approved Rulings are plays where there are no eligible substitutes. BUT, the play we are discussing has an eligible player sitting the bench. If you haven't read the entire thread, I suggest reading posts #5 through #30. They will give you the background as to why a team must have five (5) players on the court if they have five (5) eligible players.

MTD, Sr.

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

TexRef:

The NFHS rules say the same thing and all NFHS Casebook Plays and NCAA Approved Rulings are plays where there are no eligible substitutes. BUT, the play we are discussing has an eligible player sitting the bench. If you haven't read the entire thread, I suggest reading posts #5 through #30. They will give you the background as to why a team must have five (5) players on the court if they have five (5) eligible players.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

That's the thing, the sub is not an eligible player until time runs off of the clock. I understand the 5 players, but a player has to be eligible to play. In this case, the team member is not eligible until time has come off of the clock.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Texref

Mark,

That's the thing, the sub is not an eligible player until time runs off of the clock. I understand the 5 players, but a player has to be eligible to play. In this case, the team member is not eligible until time has come off of the clock.

I said the exact same thing months ago. MTD just doesn't believe that. He didn't believe it then and he doesn't believe that now. There is no use trying to convince him otherwise.

PS The NFHS book uses the same language as the NCAA book. You and I agree that the language is clear. MTD says that it is not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

PS The NFHS book uses the same language as the NCAA book. You and I agree that the language is clear. MTD says that it is not.

I say that it isn't also. This particular play is not covered under either ruleset imo.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I received an email from Mary Struckhoff at 09:02amEDT this morning. Below is the letter.

"Mark,

I do not address question posted on forums or in chat rooms. As you know, the procedure is for officials to get rules interpretations from their respective state association offices.

However, that question has been asked and answered several times already by this office and is included as a new case book play in this year’s book (see below).

*8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3 in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

Mary Struckhoff

NFHS Assistant Director

Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter"


Camron, we have been vindicated. The Casebook Play is identical to the play that I submitted to her and I do not even get any credit for it.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Well, that pretty well covers it, then.

[Camron Rust]

Note that this new case's numbering implies connected to rule 8.2 (Designating a Free Thrower) and not 3.3 as Nev was basing his opinion on nor on 3.2 as I was. However, it does clearly say that a player is an available substitute even if they were just removed if they are the only one left and (implied) another player must leave the game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, it does clearly say that a player is an available substitute even if they were just removed...

I see that, Camron, and it goes completely against the NFHS rule for a sub being eligible.

Of course, such is typical from Mary in the past few years.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I see that, Camron, and it goes completely against the NFHS rule for a sub being eligible.

Of course, such is typical from Mary in the past few years.

Nevada, say what you will about Mary's personal answers and interpretations (perhaps the reason she is reluctant to offer those types of answers now); but according to MTD's email, this is not Mary's answer. It is the answer of the committee as a whole based on its inclusion into the case book.

I have to admit to a bit of pride for having a play I designed included in the case book.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I see that, Camron, and it goes completely against the NFHS rule for a sub being eligible.

No it doesn't. The rules you're referring to address specific situations with specific intents in mind (even if the intents are not explicity stated in the rule). They were never meant to be absolutes (few rules are). There are usually exceptional situations where the right thing to do is to not follow the letter of the rule but the spirit.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

"Mark,

I do not address question posted on forums or in chat rooms. As you know, the procedure is for officials to get rules interpretations from their respective state association offices.

I found this comment to be the most interesting. Maybe some individuals will stop trying to tell us what the NF wants as if states have no authority to give interpretations based on what they think is correct. Or maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.

Peace

[Adam]

Play nice, fellas.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

RULING: B2 may return to the game and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

Mary Struckhoff

So what other rules would she like the officials to set aside when a team is down to only a few people left?

Obviously the ruling was made by a BHL who feels sorry for the team that subbed out their only other team member, however it is a very poor decision as it is illogical, sets a bad precedent, and goes against previous NFHS statements.

[JRutledge]

LOL!!!

No actually it is sad.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So what other rules would she like the officials to set aside when a team is down to only a few people left?

I humbly submit (again) that this not a case of setting a rule aside but rather a case of considering the INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES. What is the intent and purpose of 3-3-4? We might speculate and theorize on this for an extended period of time, but would any reasonable person think that the intent was to make a team play with 4 players for a few seconds following an injury?