Free Throw Shooter
 

Can any player (on the floor) shoot the free throws when a hurt player has to leave the game or does it have to be the substitue?

SUBSTITUE

Unless there is no substitute available.

Just though of a situation with this I hadn't considered before.

A1 is fouled and will be shooting two shots. After the first shot, B6 (the only sub eligible) subs for B2. During the 2nd shot, A1 shoves B3 in the back trying to get the rebound, causing B3 to roll an ankle and be unable to continue playing for the time being. The clock does not run. Bonus free throws are in effect. B2 is the only sub on the bench who has not fouled out or been injured; but B2 cannot re-enter because the clock has not run since B6 came in.

Any of the four on the floor may now shoot for B.
No eligible sub,

Snaqwells:

Not so fast. The purpose of the rule that does not allow B2 to re-enter the game until the first opportunity to sub after the clock has started is to keep both teams to run players in out of the game during the same stop clocked period: HC-B sends B3 in for B2; HC-A sees this and sends in A6 for A5; then HC-B sends B2 back in the game for B3 which causes HC-A to send A5 back in for A6, ad infinitum (Mark, Jr. who has taken three years of Latin is asleep, he had to carry me Thursday afternoon in a boys' jr. H.S. DH and has a H.S. swim meet Friday night and needs his rest, so I cannot ask him if I have used the correct Latin phrase, but I think everybody gets the idea).

But in your situation, the substitution rules would not prevent Team B to play short-handed because of an injury. The rules require a team to have five players on the court as long as it have five eligible players available, not withstanding a player that is technically eligible but has become injured during the game and cannot return to the game. This rule would trump the subsitution rule. Use the same logic when a TF has occured after the ten minute mark before the start of the game and before the start of the game: The rules state that starter cannot be replaced unless he becomes injured or ill, but the rules also state that any player including an incoming substitute can shoot the TF's free throws. The TF free throws trump the changing of the starting lineup rule.

MTD, Sr.

This logic works for me, thanks. It's one of those late, lonely nights when I have too much time on my hands to just think about stuff. I think I'll just call it a night. :D

So, there is no circumstance where a player on the floor can shoot even if there are enough subs? I thought this was on the NFHS test a few years back.

I agree with that and disagree with what MTD wrote below.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

NevadaRef:

I agree with you concerning 2002-03 NFHS Rules Interpretations SITUATION 5, but in Snaqwells play, there is an eligible substitute, and that eligible substitute is B2. That is the play that my post is addressing. Yes, SITUATION can be applied to Snaqwells play, but if the injured player cannot play even after the charged timeout, then I would stand by my decision to let B2 return to the game even though the clock had not been started since the time he was removed from the game. I admit that Snaqwells play is very remote and I have never had such a situation occur (knock on my head right now) in my 37 years of officiating, but you never know.

MTD, Sr.

According to my understanding of the rules B2 is not an eligible substitute at that time.

That's because you're getting soft in your old age. :D

(Said in the nicest possible way, of course. ;) )

I just emailed Mary Struckhoff the following letter:


PLAY: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two shots. 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 the rebound action for A1’s missed second free throw attempt 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 timeout 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 timeout has ended.



QUESTION: Can B2 return to the game to replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts? Or must B2 remain out of the game until the first opportunity for Team B to substitute after the clock has started and instead one of the four Team B players on the court at the time of B3’s injury shoot his free throws?

MTD, Sr.

I'll side with Nevada on this one.

Of course, that probably means Mary will rule the opposite. ;)

There's nothing that says one rule "trumps" the other, Mark.

I have no idea what Mary will say but the situation is simply not covered in the rule book.

MTD,
Thanks for sending that play along.
Two comments:
1. I wish you have clearly stated in the scenario that the rebounding foul occurs BEFORE the clock runs.
2. I certainly hope that Mary's answer is faithful to the logic expressed in situation 5 from the 2002-03 Interps. Since the NFHS says that that player MUST leave in that situation after the coach was beckoned out and the team would continue with four since the substitution rule cannot be set aside. We must logically conclude that it is not proper to waive the requirements of the substitution rules in the situation posed by Snaqwells either. Perhaps you should have also included that citation in your email.

One rule trumping another.
 

Tony:

Sure it does. Look at the analogy I used in my Post #4 with regard to allowing a team to change its starting lineup so that a substitute can shoot TF free throws which were the result of a TF that occurred during the officials' jurisdiction when there is less than ten minutes before the start of the game. A team is charged with a TF when it changes its starting lineup after the ten minute mark before the start of the game unless it is for an injury or illness, but any player, including an incoming substitute, can shoot TF free throws. A team has always been allowed to "change" its starting lineup without penalty to allow an incoming substitute to shoot the free throws even though the rules stated that a team could not change its starting lineup without incurring a TF for the making the change. That is a case where one rule trumps the other.

Are you going to tell Team B that it must play with only four players because B2 cannot re-enter the game until the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has started? B2 is an eligible substitute and his re-entry does not violate the reason for the existence of the re-entry rule as written in the rules.

MTD, Sr.

I don't go back as far as you, so I can't say what used to be in the rules and what didn't. But I can say that your example is not currently a case of one rule trumping another. It is a case of there being a specific exception which permits this action. If that exception were not in there, I would make one of the five named starters attempt the technical foul FTs or assess a T to the team for changing it's starting lineup in order to get someone else in there to shoot them.

Why do you keep saying that B2 is an eligible substitute when the RULES clearly state that he is NOT? :mad:
Team B must temporarily play with four just as in situation 5. Too bad for them. That's the way it goes when you show up for a game with very few team members. Just ask the Arizona State women's team. ;)

Item (1): Yikes, you are correct. We all knew what we were chatting about, but will Mary understand? That is the $64,000 question.

And as we speak, Mary returned my email with a ruling based upon the fact the the clock had started before A1's foul. ROFLMAO!! She also didn't like that I went directly to her rather than go through the OhioHSAA office, meaning it could take weeks if not months to get an answer. So I responded again requesting an interpretation because she is the final authority on the matter not a StateHSAA and that I am a member of NFOA and that should entitle me to request interpretations directly from her. Nothing like making the boss angry. ROFLMAO!!

Just another fun day in the DeNucci Family household.

MTD, Sr.

Why don't you just email her the link to this thread and ask her to read it?

She could then send something out to the heads of all state associations.

PS She was probably ticked because without the specification that the foul occurred PRIOR to the clock starting, she likely felt that you were bothering her with a trivial play.

She hasn't failed us yet, has she?

Agree.

Am I correct that the above (underlined) quote is correct?

If there is an eligible sub, he/she is the only person who can shoot for the injured player.

The only time any player on the court may shoot free throws is for a technical foul or, as noted in this thread, when there isn't an eligible sub for an injured player.

Can a player not on the floor (one of the five) shoot free throws that resulted in a technical foul. Can he sub in at the time of thechnical? is that permissable?

Yes.

Calling NevadeRef, Woody, Tony and all others: Please read!!
 

Well she did say that the ruling was very simple one, but when I replied to her email stating that I was not as clear as I should have been in describing the play and clarified the the game clock situation she refused to answer any further emails from me. Of course her attitude about me sending my play to my State Interpreter instead of her go my dander up and I told her that as the Rules Editor she is the final word on all rules interpretation and that as a member of NFOA I had a right to request an interpretation directly from her probably added fuel to the fire. :D

None-the-less, I have posted the play on the NFHS Basketball Discussion Forum. The URL for the thread is:

http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...&f=11&t=001669

I hope that people will read the thread and and post their opinions; Then after a sufficient number of posts have been made one of us could then email her and request that she read the thread and give us an official NFHS interpretation.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. When the time comes to send Mary an email if anyone needs her email just email me at DeNucciBASKETBALL (at) Hotmail (dot) com, and I will email it to you.

Situation: Tech on Team B ... can anyone on Team A shoot the Tech - including a player who was not on the floor and was on the bench?

Johnny:

The answer to your question is yes.

MTD, Sr.

Thanks .... any player in the book (on the floor or bench) can shoot free throws that resulted in a technical foul, however only the sub (or playing checking in for an injured player) can shoot free throws that were supposed to goto the injured player ---- thanks!

I don't have my books, but my thinking is that any player that is not already in the game, DQ'ed, or ejected is an eligible substitute. I don't think there is any wording that declares that a replaced player is an "ineligible substitute", but rather there are restrictions on when s/he can reenter. In this case the restriction is after the clock has started.

If this logic is acceptable, then the wording of rule in question says that any eligible substitute my take an injured players free-throws. The use of the word any implies an exception ot the previous restriction.

Essentially my reasoning is that while the the rule allowing the substitute to shoot the FT's is providing permission for any eligible substitute to enter given the sitution of an injury. Ultimately it is my belief that given that the rule specifically addresses a specific situation (what to do with an injured player's FT's) and gives a direct solution to said situation with the permissive phrase of "any eligible sub", the specific situation ruling should take precedence over the general restriction on re-entering a replaced player. It's similar to telling your kids not to go outside after dark (general rule), but that if there is a fire they should go outside immediately (specific situation).

This is just my opinion and since I'm away from my rule book, I don't have the exact wording of the rule, I reserve the right to change my opinion. In the end it will come down to the exact definition of "eligible substitute".

Mark, just because someone is an Editor doesn't mean that they are completely knowledgeable about the material that they are editing. I've seen too many wierd(for you, Chuck) rulings issued by her to consider her as a definitive rules source. You might be better off to go to your state interpreter or another Rules Committee member on this one.

As Tony said, it's not really covered definitively. My own feeling? The purpose and intent imo of the substitution rules were to not allow coaches to play games or gain an unfair advantage with or through the substitution process. Allowing a legitimately injured player who has recovered to re-enter the game in one specific case to make up 5 players on the court isn't really an unfair advantage. Note again that is just my personal opinion. I'm surerashell about as far from being a definitive rules source as you can get.

As many of you know (or may not know) NASO is having its annual officiating summit in Cleveland, Ohio from Sunday thru Tuesday. I am not going because it costs $400 (not including hotel rooms) for a NASO member (which I am) and I am too cheap to fork out that kind of money.

BUT on Saturday, the OhiHSAA is having an officiating clinic for its officials in basketball, football, soccer (futbol, :D ), and volleyball at the same hotel as the NASO Officials Summit. The cost is $30 (the official has to choose one of the four sports) and an official gets credit for the mandatory State Rules Meeting and one Local Association Rules Meeting. 'The Preacher" and I are going for the basketball clinic.

Mary Struckhoff will be at the NASO Summit and I have just talked with the OhioHSAA office and while Mary Struckhoff is not scheduled for as a clinician for the OhioHSAA Clinic there is the chance that she will make an appearence at the basketball clinic because Hank Zaborniak, of the OhioHSAA will be speaking at the NASO Officials Summit. And if she does show up for a question and answer session, I will be asking her about this play.

MTD, Sr.

NCAA Ruling
 

The NCAA rule book leaves no room for discussion on the situation.

Rule 3-1-2: The team may continue to play with fewer than five players when all other squad members are not eligible or able to play

Rule 3-4-14: A player who has been withdrawn or replaced by a substitute may reenter the game at the next opportunity to substitute, provided that the game clock has been properly started after the withdrawal or replacement.

Rule 4-51: Player: A player is one of five or fewer members of a team's personnel who is legally on the playing court to participate

Rule 4-65: Team Member: A team member is a member of the bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

Based on those rulings, if this play were to happen in a college game, one of the four remaining players on the floor would have to shoot the free throws and they would play with 4 until the next opportunity to sub in the 5th player.

I don't know if the High School ruling is the same as I'm not sure of the language in the rule book.

TexRef:

The NFHS rules say the same thing and all NFHS Casebook Plays and NCAA Approved Rulings are plays where there are no eligible substitutes. BUT, the play we are discussing has an eligible player sitting the bench. If you haven't read the entire thread, I suggest reading posts #5 through #30. They will give you the background as to why a team must have five (5) players on the court if they have five (5) eligible players.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

That's the thing, the sub is not an eligible player until time runs off of the clock. I understand the 5 players, but a player has to be eligible to play. In this case, the team member is not eligible until time has come off of the clock.

I said the exact same thing months ago. MTD just doesn't believe that. He didn't believe it then and he doesn't believe that now. There is no use trying to convince him otherwise.

PS The NFHS book uses the same language as the NCAA book. You and I agree that the language is clear. MTD says that it is not.

I say that it isn't also. This particular play is not covered under either ruleset imo.

???
 

What's not clear about it? The rule clearly states that if the team has 5 eligible players. In this case, the "sub" isn't eligible for the reason listed under the sub rule. Because of that, the "sub" does not meet the definition of either Team personnel or a Player. Mind you this is just temporary, but I don't think you can argue the language in the rule book can you?

The rules state that a team may not play short if it has eligible players on the bench. By definition an eligible player is a player is one who is not disqualified. The player who went out is not a disqualified player and since the rules state that a team may not play short the player must come back into the game to replace the injured player even though no time has run off the clock.

MTD, Sr.

Rule 4 Definitions ???
 

Mark, NFHS citation please, rule book, or case book.

Mark

I gave you the definition of Player and Team Member and the shorthanded rule in my first post. The "sub" is not eligible based on the definitions given and the sub rule quoted. But, you will obviously not be convinced of that and you won't convince me so we can agree to disagree.:)

Meant to add this to this reply:
Edited to add the following:
After finally getting home and looking over the HS rule book, Mark you still don't have an argument to make. The HS rules do not "define" substitute the way that NCAA does. However under 3-1-1 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...
Rule 3-3-4: A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been properly started following his/her replacement.

Now the only argument I see you having is whether this "once-in-a-lifetime" situation would fall under this rule, or the NCAA rule for that matter, or you might could argue that the famous 2-3 could, and I stress COULD, apply here.

Billy,

There is no definition of eligible player. The NCAA rule book defines Bench Personnel, Team Personnel, Substitute and Team Member. :eek:

PLAY: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two shots. 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 the rebound action for A1’s missed second free throw attempt (and before the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court, A1 (A1’s foul was before the game clock started) 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 timeout 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 timeout has ended.

QUESTION: Can B2 return to the game to replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts? Or must B2 remain out of the game until the first opportunity for Team B to substitute after the clock has started and instead one of the four Team B players on the court at the time of B3’s injury to shoot his free throws?


I have taken the position that B2 can return. I am going to reference NFHS Rules but they equally applicable to games played under NCAA Men's/Women's Rules.


NFHS R3-S1-A1 (TEAM): 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. See NCAA R3-S1-A1, A2, and A3.


NFHS R3-S3-A4 (SUBSTITUTION): A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement. See NCAA R3-S4-A14.

The purpose of NFHS R3-S3-A4 is to keep both teams from running players in and out of the game during the same stop clocked period: HC-B sends B3 in for B2; HC-A sees this and sends in A6 for A5; then HC-B sends B2 back in the game for B3 which causes HC-A to send A5 back in for A6, ad infinitum.


NFHS R4-S34-A2 (BENCH PERSONNEL): Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and statistician(s). During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel. See NCAA R4-S8-A1.

NFHS R4-S14-A1 (DISQUALIFIED PLAYER): A disqualified player is one who is barred from further participation in the game because of having committed his/her fifth foul (personal and technical), two technical fouls or a flagrant foul. See NCAA R4-S20-A1.

NFHS R4-S34-A1 (PLAYER): A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time, except intermission. See NCAA R4-S51.

NFHS R4-S34-A3 (SUBSTITUTE): A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court. If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live. A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification. See NCAA R4-S63.

NFHS R4-S34-A4 (TEAM MEMBER): A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player. See NCAA R4-S65.


NFHS Casebook Play 3.1.1.: SITUATION: After six players have been disqualified, Team A has only four who are eligible to continue in the game as players. In a gesture of fair play, the coach of Team B indicates a desire to withdraw a player so that each team will have four players on the court. RULING: This is not permissible. Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available. If no substitute is available, a team must continue with fewer than five players. When only one player remains to participate, that team shall forfeit the game unless the referee believes this team still has an opportunity to win the game.

NFHS Casebook Play 3.1.1 coupled with the reason for NFHS R3-S3-A4 (NCAA R3-S4-A4) supports allowing B2 to re-enter the game in the original situation being discussed in this thread.

MTD, Sr.

I just got back from the OhioHSAA Officiating Clinic in Cleveland. Mary Struckhoff was not there so the subject never came up. AND, I was not going to spend $400 as NASO member to attend the NASO Officiating Summit from Sunday thru Tuesday.

BUT, since the MichiganHSAA went to girls' basketball in the Winter I have not registered with the MichiganHSAA. But, I am going to this year because I understand the girls' jr. H.S. basketball is still being played in the Fall. That way I can send the play to both the OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA State Intepreters and hope I get conflicting answers. :D Ain't I a baaaad boy!! :D

MTD, Sr.

MTD, Sr.

A player may return to the game after being replaced even of no time has run off the clock in ONLY one case...when someone else becomes unable to play (injured or disqualified) and it would leave the team with less than 5 players. The above citation by Mark clearly indicates the purpose of the rule....and it is NOT to make the team play with 4 until the next whistle after the clock starts.

Camron:

Much thanks for your support. Do you accept PayPal or do you prefer a certified bank check via registered mail? :D

MTD, Sr.

Sorry Camron, but that is completely untrue. The NFHS published an interp a couple of years ago stating the exact opposite of what you have written. The team must play with four until the next opportunity to substitute.

Please don't get caught up in MTD's opinion's which he includes with the actual text of the rules. His quotations of the rules mean something. His personal interpretations of those rules don't.

I do now realize that what I thought was a citation is his opinion...however I do still agree with it. I've not seen and NFHS interp that says otherwise. Post it if it really exists.

Rule 3 does say: Question - May a team play with fewer than five players? Answer - A team must begin with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five.


This rule dosn't comment on the restrictions on when a substitute may enter the game...it just says they only continue with less if they have no more subs.

Sub
 

You are correct that this rule doesn't say anything about the sub. You have to read the substitution rule that I, and several others, have previously posted. Since this player was just taken out of the game, he/she is NOT an ELIGIBLE sub. Of course this is BY RULE. As JR is famous for saying, it's not up to us to determine on the floor whether the rule is fair or not.

As to the case that Mark references about the coach wanting to withdraw the player...First it doesn't say whether the player was off the floor. Second, it is not a substitute situation since no player went into the game for him/her.

Seing Is Believing ...
 

I agree, but, as usual, for me, I would love to see a citation (year, etc) regarding the NFHS publishing an interpretation of this situation that I can hang my hat on.

Camron,
There are two NFHS play rulings that are insightful here.
However, first let me state that MTD has made this same argument before. In a previous thread he stated that the rule requiring a team to play with five players trumps the substitutions rules which mandate that a withdrawn player or player directed to leave the game due to blood, injury, or improper uniform sit out for a tick of the clock.
His logic was completely refuted by the following NFHS interp from 2002-03:

SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)

Additionally, we have 3.3.3 Situation B which tells us that a withdrawn player is NOT an eligible substitute because he can't properly attempt technical foul free throws as any eligible substitute can do per 8-3. This ruling provides the strongest language that such a team member is NOT an eligible substitute at that time. The officials simply made a mistake in allowing A1 to return and attempt the FTs.

ILLEGAL ENTRY
3.3.3 SITUATION B: Team B is charged with a technical foul for an excess time-out. During this stopped-clock interval, A1 is replaced by A6. A1 then returns to the game and attempts the two free throws which are: (a) both successful; (b) both unsuccessful; or (c) one is successful and one is not. RULING: Once A1 re-entered, even illegally, and the ball became live, A1 was a legal player at that point. The resulting action in (a), (b) and (c) stands. The situation does not come under the provisions of the correctable-error rule, nor is there any provision for penalizing either Team A or A1. (3-3-4; 8-3)

Nice, but irrelevant citations.

That player had never left the game....and a team can not be forced to take the timeout. So, the team basically has the choice to take the timeout or play with 4.

Team A had 5 healthy and non-disqualified players without A1 returning. There was no conflict between having 5 players and the substitution rule. A1 entered illegally because there was no rule that could even be argued to apply. Nice try but no cigar.


Neither of these citations are definitive....they're similar, but not definitive.


Now, consider the following unlikely but plausible play...

Team A and B each have 10 players...all eligible. During a dead ball, team A and team B each sub all 5 players for the 5 on the bench. Before the clock is started, the 10 players who just entered get into a fight and are disqualified (there were 10 players involved in the recent WNBA fight). The players on the bench do not participate in the fight. By your interpretation, none of the remaining non-DQ'd players can be allowed into the game. Since there are no players in the game, the clock can't be started (who's going to execute a throwin). Since the clock can't be started, the players can't come into the game. We're gonna be here a long time!

At some point, the rule requiring players to be on the court clearly trumps the requirement that they remain out after being substituted.

The situation above (#5) is closest but is missing the 6th player who is healthy and able to play and was removed before an injury....akin to replacing a starter before the game begins when one becomes injured during warmups.

Camron,
I agree that in your 10 player fight scenario following 10 players being subbed out there is no other way to continue the game than to set aside the substitution provision.

Of course it has no real bearing on our discussion because in our play we have a plausible way to continue the game. It simply resumes with 5 v 4.

The bottom line is that the substitute is NOT eligible to return at that time and 3.3.3 Situation B confirms this. MTD just continues to ignore this fact.

Camron:

I love your ten (10) player situatioin. But, I don't know how unplausible the situation could be in today's goofy society.

MTD, Sr.

Nothing you've cited states that the player is ineligible. The injured player/timeout situation above doesn't have an alternative player that could be considered available. The illegally returning player citation doesn't have the problem of fewer than 5 players. :rolleyes: Again, they're close, but not close enough.

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

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 like to argue as much as the next guy. :D Most guys anyway. But, this is one of those plays which I consider to be probably a once in a lifetime (or less) situation for most of us. With this in mind, backed by the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules" passage that we all know so well, and further reinforced by 2-3, I would have no problem allowing B2 to reenter the game in the above situation.
I would be very surprised if either coach could argue either side of this issue.

And you'd likely give a kid who had the asthma attack a few moments to recover and then allow him to stay in the game as well.

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.

I have just sent an email to Mary Struckhoff with the url's of both this thread and the NFHS Forum Thread. I have asked her to read the threads and give us her opinion. Hopefully, she will help us out.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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).

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 <b><font color = red>ONE</font></b> from proclaiming to the masses that <font color = red><b>HIS</b></font> 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 <b><font color = red>ONE's</font></b> "reason and logic" and therefore it must be right, that still doesn't make it fact at the present moment.

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.

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

...and consistently.

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.

Mary Struckhoff reply.
 

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. :D

MTD, Sr.

Well, that pretty well covers it, then.

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.

I found this comment to be the most interesting. Maybe some individuals will stop trying to tell us what the NF wants as if states have no authority to give interpretations based on what they think is correct. Or maybe this is wishful thinking on my part. :D

Peace

So what other rules would she like the officials to set aside when a team is down to only a few people left?

Obviously the ruling was made by a BHL who feels sorry for the team that subbed out their only other team member, however it is a very poor decision as it is illogical, sets a bad precedent, and goes against previous NFHS statements.

LOL!!!

No actually it is sad. ;)

Peace

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/wtf.gif

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. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...thumbsdown.gif

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

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.

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.

Play nice, fellas. :)

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

(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.

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."

I agree with you on your last statements as well. Also that is why there are State and NF Rule Interpreters in the first place. And if we did not have them, we would have more confusion. Now there has been a clarification and most of us will move on. Some still think they have to be right because they do not know any other way to do things.

Peace

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

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.

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.

Pot stirrer.

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.

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. :eek:
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. :confused:

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. :rolleyes:

Ok, I know what your position is.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.