So if I stated that this new case play addresses THE SPECIFIC SITUATION when a player is FOULED, INJURED, AND DUE FTs and states that when all of those criteria are met that then and only then may an otherwise ineligible substitute return immediately and attempt those FTs, would I be correct?

In other words what the NFHS just wrote is a very specific ruling which we cannot expand to any other situation no matter what common elements they may share. Afterall, that is the way that you have been reasoning throughout this entire thread.

Things That Make You Go Hmm ...
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Thanks for the research into this situation. Do all of us have the same access to Mary Struckhoff, NFHS Assistant Director, Basketball Rules Editor, National Interpreter, as you have, or do you have to be a state interpreter, or have a similar role? I would love to simply email her every time I have a question about a NFHS interpretation.

Nevadaref: I was wondering the same thing. Members of my local board have always been taught that "you have to sit a tick, but you don't have to play a tick". Does that now change to "you have to sit a tick, but you don't have to play a tick; unless there's a "foul, injury, due free throws" situation", or to, "you have to sit a tick, but you don't have to play a tick; unless there's a playing with less than five players when a healthy, non disqualified player is sitting on the bench" situation?

Let's say Team A, which only started the game with nine players (it's influenza season), due to three disqualifications (Team A has been pressing, and fouling, the entire game), is down to six players. After a foul is called on A-3 for pushing B-1, Team A's eighth foul of the second half, B-1 is given a one and one opportunity. A-6 reports as a substitute, and is legally beckoned to replace A-5. A-5 leaves the floor and sits down on Team A's bench, before B-1 takes his, or her, free throw. During the free throw, which hits the front of the rim, and bounces high in the air, before going in, A-1 pushes B-2, committing his, or her, fifth foul, and is disqualified. The official reports the disqualification to the table, coach, and player, and A-1 leaves the floor and sits on Team A's bench. This being a false multiple foul situation, the official clears the lane so that B-1 may attempt his, or her second warranted free throw. Keep in mind that the clock has never started, or, in other words, it never "ticked". Coach of Team A realizes that he, or she, now has only four players on the floor, and wants to replace the disqualified A-1, with substitute A-5, who has not been on the bench a "tick".

What does the official do? Does playing the game with five players rule always "trump" the "sitting a tick" rule? Does this specific case book situation of a "foul, injury, due free throws" (NFHS 2008-09 Casebook 8.2 Situation B) also cover my situation? I would like this specific casebook play used as a citation to cover all situations in which a team may be forced to play with less than five players when a healthy, non disqualified player is sitting on the bench, waiting to "sit a tick". A generalization of this casebook play would certainly make it easier for the official to make decisions regarding playing with five players, or less, but at this point, I would hesitate to do that, and, at best, it's one of those "things that make you go hmm".

http://re3.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/m6/3640547229

"Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Sitting out a tick is neither sitting nor is it a tick. Discuss."

http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m7/3858682145

Bill:

It has always (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) been my position that if there are players who either are not disqualified or injured on the bench, a team must play five (5) players.

The new Casebook Play involves a player being unable to play due to a foul by his opponent; in other words an action over which he had no control. You new play involves a player commiting a foul that causes him to become disqualified; in other words an over which he had some or complete control. It is my interpretion that even though the player's own actions caused him to be unable to continue playing, the requirement for a team to play five (5) still is the governing rule.

MTD, Sr.

Playing with 5 is a fundamental requirement of the game...and has been from near the beginning. "Sitting a tick" is a recent addition created to stop a specific type of behavior. So is the requirement that an injured player (when the coach was beckoned) leave the game unless a timeout is called.

Simply put, the "sit a tick" concept only applies when there is someone else who can be/stay in the game (not injured and not DQ'd). The rules requiring 5 or requiring a coach to have a sub report for a disqualified/injured player take precedence when there is any other player who can fill that role.

Another way....A non-DQ'd player on the bench is always an available substitute when they are the only one remaining and a player on the floor requires replacement.

That's the purpose and intent of the rule imo also.

Please Convince Me, Some More ...
 

I would love it if Camron Rust's statement, and Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s similar statement, was a NFHS fundamental rule, not a requirement, as Camron Rust stated in his post, of basketball, to cover all situations, injuries, ill-timed substitutions during false multiple fouls, and/or, false double fouls, etc. It would make our job as officials much easier, although this situation would be a rare, but not unheard of, occurrence.

I would feel bad if, in the situation that I posted earlier, as the referee, I allowed A-5 to enter the game to be the fifth player, and he, or she, immediately, flagrantly fouled another player, causing a major injury, and after the game, I was told by the Team B coach, or the Team B athletic director, or my partner, or my evaluator, that A-5 should have never been allowed into the game at that point because he, or she, according to NFHS rules, hadn't yet "sat a tick".

Just because I would like to see a general rule that a team has cannot play with less than five when it has a healthy, nondisqaulified player on the bench, doesn't necessarily mean that it is fully supported by NFHS rules. I would like to be convinced of this, but I'm not convinced yet.

Almost Convinced ...
 

NFHS Rule 3-1-1 Each team consists of five players, one of whom is the captain. NOTE: A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five. When there is only one player participating for a team, the team shall forfeit the game, unless the referee believes that team has an opportunity to win the game.

NFHS Rule 3-3-4: A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game for injury or for illegal equipment or apparel, etc., shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement.

If there are players who either are not disqualified or injured on the bench, a team must play five players. This means, in other words, that Rule 3-1-1 "trumps" Rule 3-3-4. This statement, or one similar to it, seems to be supported by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., Camron Rust, and Jurassic Referee, three highly regarded members of this Forum. Any dissenters? I really want to be convinced that this would be fully supported by NFHS rules, case book situations, and/or, interpretations. I'm almost convinced.