The Official Forum - Free Throw Shooter

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Free Throw Shooter (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/41147-free-throw-shooter.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R3-S3-A4 (SUBSTITUTION): A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement. See NCAA R3-S4-A14.

The purpose of NFHS R3-S3-A4 is to keep both teams from running players in and out of the game during the same stop clocked period: HC-B sends B3 in for B2; HC-A sees this and sends in A6 for A5; then HC-B sends B2 back in the game for B3 which causes HC-A to send A5 back in for A6, ad infinitum.

A player may return to the game after being replaced even of no time has run off the clock in ONLY one case...when someone else becomes unable to play (injured or disqualified) and it would leave the team with less than 5 players. The above citation by Mark clearly indicates the purpose of the rule....and it is NOT to make the team play with 4 until the next whistle after the clock starts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Camron:

Much thanks for your support. Do you accept PayPal or do you prefer a certified bank check via registered mail? :D

MTD, Sr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sorry Camron, but that is completely untrue. The NFHS published an interp a couple of years ago stating the exact opposite of what you have written. The team must play with four until the next opportunity to substitute.

Please don't get caught up in MTD's opinion's which he includes with the actual text of the rules. His quotations of the rules mean something. His personal interpretations of those rules don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I do now realize that what I thought was a citation is his opinion...however I do still agree with it. I've not seen and NFHS interp that says otherwise. Post it if it really exists.

Rule 3 does say: Question - May a team play with fewer than five players? Answer - A team must begin with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five.

This rule dosn't comment on the restrictions on when a substitute may enter the game...it just says they only continue with less if they have no more subs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You are correct that this rule doesn't say anything about the sub. You have to read the substitution rule that I, and several others, have previously posted. Since this player was just taken out of the game, he/she is NOT an ELIGIBLE sub. Of course this is BY RULE. As JR is famous for saying, it's not up to us to determine on the floor whether the rule is fair or not.

As to the case that Mark references about the coach wanting to withdraw the player...First it doesn't say whether the player was off the floor. Second, it is not a substitute situation since no player went into the game for him/her.

Seing Is Believing ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS published an interp a couple of years ago stating the exact opposite of what you have written. The team must play with four until the next opportunity to substitute.

I agree, but, as usual, for me, I would love to see a citation (year, etc) regarding the NFHS publishing an interpretation of this situation that I can hang my hat on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Camron,
There are two NFHS play rulings that are insightful here.
However, first let me state that MTD has made this same argument before. In a previous thread he stated that the rule requiring a team to play with five players trumps the substitutions rules which mandate that a withdrawn player or player directed to leave the game due to blood, injury, or improper uniform sit out for a tick of the clock.
His logic was completely refuted by the following NFHS interp from 2002-03:

SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)

Additionally, we have 3.3.3 Situation B which tells us that a withdrawn player is NOT an eligible substitute because he can't properly attempt technical foul free throws as any eligible substitute can do per 8-3. This ruling provides the strongest language that such a team member is NOT an eligible substitute at that time. The officials simply made a mistake in allowing A1 to return and attempt the FTs.

ILLEGAL ENTRY
3.3.3 SITUATION B: Team B is charged with a technical foul for an excess time-out. During this stopped-clock interval, A1 is replaced by A6. A1 then returns to the game and attempts the two free throws which are: (a) both successful; (b) both unsuccessful; or (c) one is successful and one is not. RULING: Once A1 re-entered, even illegally, and the ball became live, A1 was a legal player at that point. The resulting action in (a), (b) and (c) stands. The situation does not come under the provisions of the correctable-error rule, nor is there any provision for penalizing either Team A or A1. (3-3-4; 8-3)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nice, but irrelevant citations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)

That player had never left the game....and a team can not be forced to take the timeout. So, the team basically has the choice to take the timeout or play with 4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additionally, we have 3.3.3 Situation B which tells us that a withdrawn player is NOT an eligible substitute because he can't properly attempt technical foul free throws as any eligible substitute can do per 8-3. This ruling provides the strongest language that such a team member is NOT an eligible substitute at that time. The officials simply made a mistake in allowing A1 to return and attempt the FTs.

ILLEGAL ENTRY
3.3.3 SITUATION B: Team B is charged with a technical foul for an excess time-out. During this stopped-clock interval, A1 is replaced by A6. A1 then returns to the game and attempts the two free throws which are: (a) both successful; (b) both unsuccessful; or (c) one is successful and one is not. RULING: Once A1 re-entered, even illegally, and the ball became live, A1 was a legal player at that point. The resulting action in (a), (b) and (c) stands. The situation does not come under the provisions of the correctable-error rule, nor is there any provision for penalizing either Team A or A1. (3-3-4; 8-3)

Team A had 5 healthy and non-disqualified players without A1 returning. There was no conflict between having 5 players and the substitution rule. A1 entered illegally because there was no rule that could even be argued to apply. Nice try but no cigar.

Neither of these citations are definitive....they're similar, but not definitive.

Now, consider the following unlikely but plausible play...

Team A and B each have 10 players...all eligible. During a dead ball, team A and team B each sub all 5 players for the 5 on the bench. Before the clock is started, the 10 players who just entered get into a fight and are disqualified (there were 10 players involved in the recent WNBA fight). The players on the bench do not participate in the fight. By your interpretation, none of the remaining non-DQ'd players can be allowed into the game. Since there are no players in the game, the clock can't be started (who's going to execute a throwin). Since the clock can't be started, the players can't come into the game. We're gonna be here a long time!

At some point, the rule requiring players to be on the court clearly trumps the requirement that they remain out after being substituted.

The situation above (#5) is closest but is missing the 6th player who is healthy and able to play and was removed before an injury....akin to replacing a starter before the game begins when one becomes injured during warmups.

Camron,
I agree that in your 10 player fight scenario following 10 players being subbed out there is no other way to continue the game than to set aside the substitution provision.

Of course it has no real bearing on our discussion because in our play we have a plausible way to continue the game. It simply resumes with 5 v 4.

The bottom line is that the substitute is NOT eligible to return at that time and 3.3.3 Situation B confirms this. MTD just continues to ignore this fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice, but irrelevant citations.

That player had never left the game....and a team can not be forced to take the timeout. So, the team basically has the choice to take the timeout or play with 4.

Team A had 5 healthy and non-disqualified players without A1 returning. There was no conflict between having 5 players and the substitution rule. A1 entered illegally because there was no rule that could even be argued to apply. Nice try but no cigar.

Neither of these citations are definitive....they're similar, but not definitive.

Now, consider the following unlikely but plausible play...

Team A and B each have 10 players...all eligible. During a dead ball, team A and team B each sub all 5 players for the 5 on the bench. Before the clock is started, the 10 players who just entered get into a fight and are disqualified (there were 10 players involved in the recent WNBA fight). The players on the bench do not participate in the fight. By your interpretation, none of the remaining non-DQ'd players can be allowed into the game. Since there are no players in the game, the clock can't be started (who's going to execute a throwin). Since the clock can't be started, the players can't come into the game. We're gonna be here a long time!

At some point, the rule requiring players to be on the court clearly trumps the requirement that they remain out after being substituted.

The situation above (#5) is closest but is missing the 6th player who is healthy and able to play and was removed before an injury....akin to replacing a starter before the game begins when one becomes injured during warmups.

Camron:

I love your ten (10) player situatioin. But, I don't know how unplausible the situation could be in today's goofy society.

MTD, Sr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nothing you've cited states that the player is ineligible. The injured player/timeout situation above doesn't have an alternative player that could be considered available. The illegally returning player citation doesn't have the problem of fewer than 5 players. :rolleyes: Again, they're close, but not close enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Excuse me? I've cited a rule and two play rulings that state that the team member is not an eligible substitute.

So the real question is do you have some citation that says otherwise? You and MTD are the ones who need to prove that the substitution rule can be set aside for your specific instance.

I like to argue as much as the next guy. :D Most guys anyway. But, this is one of those plays which I consider to be probably a once in a lifetime (or less) situation for most of us. With this in mind, backed by the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules" passage that we all know so well, and further reinforced by 2-3, I would have no problem allowing B2 to reenter the game in the above situation.
I would be very surprised if either coach could argue either side of this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref

And you'd likely give a kid who had the asthma attack a few moments to recover and then allow him to stay in the game as well.

And according to the NFHS interp cited in post #52 you'd be completely wrong. So let's not go down the path of personal interpretations, use of 2-3, spirit and intent, or common sense. In this thread we are striving to determine what is the specific NFHS ruling.

I have just sent an email to Mary Struckhoff with the url's of both this thread and the NFHS Forum Thread. I have asked her to read the threads and give us her opinion. Hopefully, she will help us out.

MTD, Sr.