Free Throw Shooter

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

The interp you cite does not match this situation. As far as I know up to this point, there is no specific NFHS ruling for this situation. All that leaves is personal interpretation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

No you haven't.

You've cited a rule that say an injured player may stay in the game only if a timeout is taken...and must sit out if not. It goes on to say that say that the team MAY continue with four and further says that the injured player may reenter later.

You've cited another that says a sub becomes a player even if the entry is illegal when the ball become live. The case really has nothing to do with why the entry is illegal...just that it becomes legal when the ball becomes live.

Neither case comprehends the situation where a team has 5 players on the court and one becomes unable to play (injured/DQ'd) when a 6th player is on the bench haveing been removed from the game just before the injury/DQ (without the clock starting).

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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'm not setting aside a rule, I'm resolving the conflict between two rules by selecting one when you're selecting the other. You've yet to show me why my priority is invalid and yours is valid.

I've made my choice on common sense and examination of the implications and intents of the rules and have provided a concrete and clear example of why your personal interpratation can't work. I have just as much authority to bring in the 5th player in every case not countered by a specific example...and that is only once case (where the remaining player is injured and the team choose not to take a timeout to keep them in). The rules require that a team play with 5 if the team has 5 players.

Here are to cases that are just as relevant...

Case 3.1.1 NUMBER OF PLAYERS REQUIRED....Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available.

Case 3.2B [designated starter]....A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've cited a rule that say an injured player may stay in the game only if a timeout is taken...and must sit out if not. It goes on to say that say that the team MAY continue with four and further says that the injured player may reenter later.

Yep, I've cited an NFHS ruling that the substitution rules takes priority over having five players on the court. You and MTD claim the exact opposite. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've cited another that says a sub becomes a player even if the entry is illegal when the ball become live. The case really has nothing to do with why the entry is illegal...just that it becomes legal when the ball becomes live.

How can you debate this issue if you miss the very reason that I cited that case play? So let me spell it out for you. I didn't cite 3.3.3 Situation B because it tells us that an illegally entered team member becomes a player when the ball becomes live, I cited it because it tells us that a player who has just subbed out is NOT an eligible substitute until the clock runs. The NFHS, not me, is defining that team member as NOT eligible at this time. The play ruling tells us that the officials mistakenly allowed A1 to return. They should not have done that and neither should you. How much clearer can that be?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Neither case comprehends the situation where a team has 5 players on the court and one becomes unable to play (injured/DQ'd) when a 6th player is on the bench haveing been removed from the game just before the injury/DQ (without the clock starting).

Is that 6th TEAM MEMBER on the bench an eligible substitute? NO. Refer to 3.3.3 Sit B. Therefore, he can't come in right now, so forget about him.

Can a team continue with only four because a player became injured when there were no substitutes available? Yes. Refer to 2002-03 NFHS Interp #5.

So why is it so hard for you to understand the proper ruling? Get the injured player to the bench and unless the team takes a time-out to allow him to recover and keep him in the game, the contest will continue 5 v 4 until the next substitution opportunity.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not setting aside a rule, I'm resolving the conflict between two rules by selecting one when you're selecting the other. You've yet to show me why my priority is invalid and yours is valid.

Yep, that is exactly what you are doing and you are selecting the wrong rule. I've told you before, and I just showed you again in this very post that when the rule about five on the court conflicts with the substitution rules that the NFHS has ruled to uphold the substitution restrictions. It's not me picking, it's the NFHS.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've made my choice on common sense and examination of the implications and intents of the rules and have provided a concrete and clear example of why your personal interpratation can't work. I have just as much authority to bring in the 5th player in every case not countered by a specific example...and that is only once case (where the remaining player is injured and the team choose not to take a timeout to keep them in). The rules require that a team play with 5 if the team has 5 players.


Here are to cases that are just as relevant...

Case 3.1.1 NUMBER OF PLAYERS REQUIRED....Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available.

Case 3.2B [designated starter]....A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution.

Exactly why THE RULES AS WRITTEN should be followed and we should not be resorting to "common sense." What one individual thinks is common sense another may find absurd. Again it's not my personal interp, the ruling comes straight from the NFHS.
You don't have "just as much authority" to bring in the fifth player. The NFHS says to apply the substitution provision and make that team member sit out for the time being.
You can cite all of the rules that you wish, but you are falling into the same trap as MTD in believing that five on the court trumps the substitution restrictions. It does not. Not because I say so, but because the NFHS has said so.
I've done my best to piece it together for you and give you the play rulings from analogous situations, but you just refuse to see the light and instead continue to drink MTD's Kool-aid and declare it to be a merlot.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The interp you cite does not match this situation. As far as I know up to this point, there is no specific NFHS ruling for this situation. All that leaves is personal interpretation.

One has to be able to put two and two together and get four. The NFHS can't write out a play ruling for every possible situation with every exact detail. If they attempted to do it that way the case book would be larger than the encyclopedia.

If one takes the similar interps and play rulings of the NFHS and puts them together, one can easily deduce how the NFHS wants the situation to be handled. That's not called personal interpretation. That's called reason and logic.

[just another ref]

3.2 SITUATION B: A1, who is designated as a starter 10 minutes prior to the scheduled starting time of the game, becomes ill or is injured before the game starts.

RULING: A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution.


This is as least as relevant as the above mentioned 3.3.3.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, I've cited an NFHS ruling that the substitution rules takes priority over having five players on the court. You and MTD claim the exact opposite. Sorry, but you're wrong.

No you haven't. You've only cited one such case...where the 5th player is the injured player...you're extrapolating to a new case.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How can you debate this issue if you miss the very reason that I cited that case play? So let me spell it out for you. I didn't cite 3.3.3 Situation B because it tells us that an illegally entered team member becomes a player when the ball becomes live, I cited it because it tells us that a player who has just subbed out is NOT an eligible substitute until the clock runs. The NFHS, not me, is defining that team member as NOT eligible at this time. The play ruling tells us that the officials mistakenly allowed A1 to return. They should not have done that and neither should you. How much clearer can that be?

The problem with your entire premise is that 3.3.3B is in a section titled illegal entry....not a section on subtitution. It's conclusion clearly notes that it is not a correctable error and their is no provision for a penalty for the illegal entry. You're simply reading a meaning into the case that is not the point of the case.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Is that 6th TEAM MEMBER on the bench an eligible substitute? NO. Refer to 3.3.3 Sit B. Therefore, he can't come in right now, so forget about him.

Again. 3.3.3B is not talking about who is or is not an eligible sub. It's sole point is that a player who enters illegally is legal when the ball becomes live. Period.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can a team continue with only four because a player became injured when there were no substitutes available? Yes. Refer to 2002-03 NFHS Interp #5.

So why is it so hard for you to understand the proper ruling? Get the injured player to the bench and unless the team takes a time-out to allow him to recover and keep him in the game, the contest will continue 5 v 4 until the next substitution opportunity.

I agree in that case....as demonstated in Sit. 5. But that is not the case we're talking about. It doesn't define that a 6th player is unavailable....there were only 5 players to start.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, that is exactly what you are doing and you are selecting the wrong rule. I've told you before, and I just showed you again in this very post that when the rule about five on the court conflicts with the substitution rules that the NFHS has ruled to uphold the substitution restrictions. It's not me picking, it's the NFHS.

You have shown no such thing....only that the specific injured player can't return. It makes no mention or even implication regarding other situations. In fact, I cited a case that says to ignore the starter/substitution rules in the event of a subsequent injury.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Exactly why THE RULES AS WRITTEN should be followed and we should not be resorting to "common sense." What one individual thinks is common sense another may find absurd. Again it's not my personal interp, the ruling comes straight from the NFHS.

Common sense is the tool used to understand what is written, not in place of it. Try it out. Extend your understanding of the NFHS rule to see if it makes sense. If it leads to an absurd result, you may wish to revisit what you think is being said. Your interpretation can lead to in impassible situation. As a result, it is ,at a mimumum, suspect.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You don't have "just as much authority" to bring in the fifth player. The NFHS says to apply the substitution provision and make that team member sit out for the time being.

I'm still waiting for the citation that supports your claim any stronger than the one I've cited that says to ignore the substitution rule when there is an unforseeable injury that complicates the situation.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can cite all of the rules that you wish, but you are falling into the same trap as MTD in believing that five on the court trumps the substitution restrictions. It does not. Not because I say so, but because the NFHS has said so.
I've done my best to piece it together for you and give you the play rulings from analogous situations, but you just refuse to see the light and instead continue to drink MTD's Kool-aid and declare it to be a merlot.

And I've shown you equally valid citations and have even give you examples where your ruling falls apart.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

One has to be able to put two and two together and get four. The NFHS can't write out a play ruling for every possible situation with every exact detail. If they attempted to do it that way the case book would be larger than the encyclopedia.

If one takes the similar interps and play rulings of the NFHS and puts them together, one can easily deduce how the NFHS wants the situation to be handled. That's not called personal interpretation. That's called reason and logic.

Naw, that's called a load of boolsh!t.

As JAR said, the play isn't definitively covered under the rules. That doesn't stop ONE from proclaiming to the masses that HIS way is the only true way.

You may end up being right if we ever do get an definitive answer from the FED on this. But no matter how many times before then you proclaim that it's ONE's "reason and logic" and therefore it must be right, that still doesn't make it fact at the present moment.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

3.2 SITUATION B: A1, who is designated as a starter 10 minutes prior to the scheduled starting time of the game, becomes ill or is injured before the game starts.

RULING: A1 may be replaced without penalty as illness or injury is considered to be an extenuating and unavoidable situation which permits a substitution.


This is as least as relevant as the above mentioned 3.3.3.

Are there eligible substitutes available to take A1's place in the starting line-up? If so, then there is no problem. The situation doesn't pose a conflict between playing with five and bringing in a team member who is NOT eligible. It simply allows someone who is eligible to enter.

All that your play ruling tells us is that a substitution is permissible for an ill or injured starter when there is an eligible substitute available. That's not shocking. That doesn't help resolve any issues.

Now what do you do if there aren't any eligible substitutes around? That would be a relevant play ruling. BTW I believe that you can't start the game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are there eligible substitutes available to take A1's place in the starting line-up? If so, then there is no problem. The situation doesn't pose a conflict between playing with five and bringing in a team member who is NOT eligible. It simply allows someone who is eligible to enter.

All that your play ruling tells us is that a substitution is permissible for an ill or injured starter when there is an eligible substitute available. That's not shocking. That doesn't help resolve any issues.

Now what do you do if there aren't any eligible substitutes around? That would be a relevant play ruling. BTW I believe that you can't start the game.

The whole point is the philosophy presented in this play...that a subsequent injury makes a substitution legal that was not legal prior to the injury.

[Y2Koach]

Just make sure that whatever you guys decide, call it both ways.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Y2Koach

Just make sure that whatever you guys decide, call it both ways.

...and consistently.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The whole point is the philosophy presented in this play...

Oh, so now you are willing to look at the philosophy and principle presented in the play ruling, but you aren't willing to consider those points from the play rulings that I cited. Very fair-minded of you.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Oh, so now you are willing to look at the philosophy and principle presented in the play ruling, but you aren't willing to consider those points from the play rulings that I cited. Very fair-minded of you.

Hardly. One is directly and explicitly commenting on the principle/philosophy of the ruling and the other is a situation that merely a has some elements in common....and you're adding your philosophy to it. Try again.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I received an email from Mary Struckhoff at 09:02amEDT this morning. Below is the letter.

"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.

However, that question has been asked and answered several times already by this office and is included as a new case book play in this year’s book (see below).

*8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3 in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still not able to play after the time out has ended. 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

NFHS Assistant Director

Basketball Rules Editor/National Interpreter"


Camron, we have been vindicated. The Casebook Play is identical to the play that I submitted to her and I do not even get any credit for it.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Well, that pretty well covers it, then.