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.

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

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

[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.

[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

...
Just make it up as you go.

Ok, I know what your position is.

[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.

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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".



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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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".



"Talk amongst yourselves"

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.
MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.