Free Throw Shooter

[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

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.