Free Throw Shooter

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

And since each individual has a different opinion of what those situations are, we end up with whimsical and capricious decisions which leave the coaches and players complaining about a lack of consistency from the officials.

[Camron Rust]

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?

....

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?

...

Doesn't seem right to me.

The rule you claim is being waived is not being used because it was never intended for such a situation. So it is not actually being waived but being used only for intended purposes. As stated by someone else (MTD?) much earlier in this thread, the entire purpose of this rule (as was explicitly stated when it was instituted) was to prevent coaches from abusing the substitution opportunities by sending players in/out resulting in the delaying of the game. It was never meant to make a team play with 4.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And since each individual has a different opinion of what those situations are, we end up with whimsical and capricious decisions which leave the coaches and players complaining about a lack of consistency from the officials.

Pot stirrer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And since each individual has a different opinion of what those situations are, we end up with whimsical and capricious decisions which leave the coaches and players complaining about a lack of consistency from the officials.

Here, have another serving of red herring to go with the one you just served.


On the point of consistency, they're not complaining about the infrequent situations that happen rarely but do occasionally happen...even once every handful of games. The lack of consistency coaches complain about are the uncomplicated garden variety stuff that happens every game and even several times every game....the stuff they've seen get called one way 90% of the time but goes the other way 10% time. That is the consistency they are worried about.

I've never had a coach complain about inconsistency on a ruling on a unusual situation....never. They may or may not like the ruling but it is not relative to consistency. To have any notion of consistency, they'd have to have seen it occur a few to several times per season.

When you have something that happens infrequently, it is likely there is no explicit coverage of it in the rules...you simply have to use common sense to combine what we do have to get to a just result.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rule you claim is being waived is not being used because it was never intended for such a situation. So it is not actually being waived but being used only for intended purposes. As stated by someone else (MTD?) much earlier in this thread, the entire purpose of this rule (as was explicitly stated when it was instituted) was to prevent coaches from abusing the substitution opportunities by sending players in/out resulting in the delaying of the game. It was never meant to make a team play with 4.

But the NFHS says that such a team member (one who has just subbed out and the clock has not yet run) can't come back in and attempt technical foul FTs, so clearly the intent and purpose of the substitution rule was to prevent a team member from doing that.
And if a team is playing with only five and one of them has an asthma attack or suffers and injury and the coach comes onto the floor the NFHS says that the team must play down a man for a short period of time (or take a TO) because the intent and purpose of the rule was definitely to make a team play with 4 in that case, but I guess not in others.

It's now so very clear when we are supposed to ignore the no-time-off-the-clock requirement or a mandatory exit for a player and when we are not. Great job NFHS.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...
Just make it up as you go.

Ok, I know what your position is.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

A thousand pardons. I spliced the 2 sits together.

Bottom line is the same. The sub cannot reenter if there is another sub available. If there is not another available, the rule does not apply.

Case closed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line is the same. The sub cannot reenter if there is another sub available. If there is not another available, the rule does not apply.

Case closed.

You also forgot that the sub can return and the officials can ignore the sit-a-tick rule if there aren't any other subs available, but the officials are not permitted to waive the requirement that a player must leave the game (or have his team take a time-out) if the coach comes onto the floor for an injury/asthma attack even though there are no subs available.

Now that makes a ton of sense.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But the NFHS says that such a team member (one who has just subbed out and the clock has not yet run) can't come back in and attempt technical foul FTs, so clearly the intent and purpose of the substitution rule was to prevent a team member from doing that.
And if a team is playing with only five and one of them has an asthma attack or suffers and injury and the coach comes onto the floor the NFHS says that the team must play down a man for a short period of time (or take a TO) because the intent and purpose of the rule was definitely to make a team play with 4 in that case, but I guess not in others.

It's now so very clear when we are supposed to ignore the no-time-off-the-clock requirement or a mandatory exit for a player and when we are not. Great job NFHS.

You're still missing the entire point. Let's try this again....

A team is only forced to play with 4 when there is no alternative (not necessarily a desireable alternative however). If there is a 5th player that can play (not injured and not DQ'd), they're in.

As for the mandatory exit rule....the case of the asthma attack situation...the way to stay in the game is through a timeout....an injured player (coach beckoned) can reamin only if a timeout is taken. That point is directly to the purpose of the rule....a team can't get an effectively free timeout. The team has the choice to not take a timeout and play with 4 or take a timeout and play with 5. However, this is really irrelavant to the question at hand.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Just an observation: When Mary Struckhoff emailed me the SITUATION which will be in the 2008-09 Casebook, something struck me as odd. The play had been placed in Rule 8, Section 2 of the Casebook and not Rule 3, Section 3.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Just an observation: When Mary Struckhoff emailed me the SITUATION which will be in the 2008-09 Casebook, something struck me as odd. The play had been placed in Rule 8, Section 2 of the Casebook and not Rule 3, Section 3.

MTD, Sr.

A little late to the party, huh?

Camron point out that fact back in post #76.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A little late to the party, huh?

Camron point out that fact back in post #76.

NevadeRef:

Yeah, I am not late to the party I still am partying ever since I received Mary's email. I haven't partied like this since I was in college.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NevadeRef:

Yeah, I am not late to the party I still am partying ever since I received Mary's email. I haven't partied like this since I was in college.

MTD, Sr.

So, IOW, you're partying like it's 1899?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, IOW, you're partying like it's 1899?

Snaqs:

Come join the party.

MTD, Sr.