Free Throw Shooter

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

It is not even the intent and purpose that is at issue. There was a hole in the rules where there was no specific solution. The NF Interpreter can come up with and interpretations that he or she sees fit to rectify the situation. This happens all the time in other sports when the rules clearly do not cover a situation, these people at the NF either clarify the situation or the state in which you live comes up with an interpretation to cover that obvious hole. I hate to bring other sports into this discussion, but this happen in football several times when there were new rules put into place and the NF did not think of the other holes they created. When it was brought to the NF's attention, they clarified their purpose of the rules and closed a hole. Then it took a year or so later for the actual rules to be changed to clearly define their intent much clearer.

The NF is not perfect and that is why there is an “interpreter” to cover these situations. Now I do not expect the rules to change to cover this situation, but for someone to say the NF is setting aside current rules on situations like this, well I will be nice and leave it alone.

Peace

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

And if the situation were slightly different would you feel the same way?

A1 is fouled and will shoot 1 & 1. Team B is playing with only six team members. B6 comes in for B2 prior to the first FT attempt. While the ball is in flight on A1's first try, which ends up being successful, B4 flagrantly strikes A3 in the face. B4 is disqualified.
Should Team B not be forced to play with four for a few seconds following B4's stupidity?

How one sees these situations often depends upon the light in which they are cast.
This is why I'm extremely disappointed in the scenario that MTD composed and the NFHS used to make their ruling. It was crafted to elicit the maximum sympathy for the short-handed team. The committee couldn't help but say, "One of their players got injured due to the actions of an opponent, we have to allow them a replacement." However, I wonder what the consensus would have been had the above situation been sent instead.

If applied to my play, the new NFHS case play is going to allow B2 to return prior to A1's second FT attempt, which will take place with the lane cleared and be followed by two more FTs by A3. So you have to ask yourself why Team B should get the extra benefit of waiving the substitution rule because one of their players behaved poorly and got himself thrown out? Had A5, the team's defensive specialist who was specifically assigned the task of guarding B2 all game, come out in favor of A8 at the same time that B2 departed would he now be allowed back in as well or does his team have to follow the substitution rules because they still have eight team members available? Afterall, the coach of Team A removed A5 only when he knew that B2 would be out of the game. Now his team gets placed in a disadvantageous situation through no fault of their own.

Doesn't seem right to me.

[Adam]

Play nice, fellas.

[Adam]

I'm sure Padgett is on some committee of some sort; probably self-appointed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not even the intent and purpose that is at issue. There was a hole in the rules where there was no specific solution. The NF Interpreter can come up with and interpretations that he or she sees fit to rectify the situation. ....


The NF is not perfect and that is why there is an “interpreter” to cover these situations. Now I do not expect the rules to change to cover this situation, but for someone to say the NF is setting aside current rules on situations like this, well I will be nice and leave it alone.

Peace

(agreeing with you)
But if people would try to understand the intent and purpose of the rules and try to apply them with that understanding and not get so stuck on the letter of the rule, we wouldn't need so many interpretations. As I repeatedly maintain, knowing the intent of the rule is just as important as knowing the rule. They can never write every possible scenario into the book, but if you understand (not just know) the rules, they don't need to.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And if the situation were slightly different would you feel the same way?

A1 is fouled and will shoot 1 & 1. Team B is playing with only six team members. B6 comes in for B2 prior to the first FT attempt. While the ball is in flight on A1's first try, which ends up being successful, B4 flagrantly strikes A3 in the face. B4 is disqualified.
Should Team B not be forced to play with four for a few seconds following B4's stupidity?


Doesn't seem right to me.

One rule has nothing to do with the other. B4 is penalized for his own stupidity. This should be penalty enough, without penalizing the team further because of injury, which we all know is "considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

(agreeing with you)
But if people would try to understand the intent and purpose of the rules and try to apply them with that understanding and not get so stuck on the letter of the rule, we wouldn't need so many interpretations. As I repeatedly maintain, knowing the intent of the rule is just as important as knowing the rule. They can never write every possible scenario into the book, but if you understand (not just know) the rules, they don't need to.

I agree with you on your last statements as well. Also that is why there are State and NF Rule Interpreters in the first place. And if we did not have them, we would have more confusion. Now there has been a clarification and most of us will move on. Some still think they have to be right because they do not know any other way to do things.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

One rule has nothing to do with the other. B4 is penalized for his own stupidity. This should be penalty enough, without penalizing the team further because of injury, which we all know is "considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation."

What injury??? B4 didn't get injured. How is his team being penalized further because of an injury?