Sub allowed before clock starts?

[Scrapper1]

We've also hashed this question around quite a bit. Team A is down to only 6 players. A6 replaces A1. Before the clock starts, A6 turns an ankle and is unable to continue, even after Team A takes a time-out. Can A1 return to the game.

Seems like the answer is now a definitive "yes". 8.2 Situation B addresses it almost directly, although it deals with a free throw action. But a player who just came out of the game is allowed back in to replace an injured player, even though the clock didn't start.

Can you tell I'm having fun going through my new casebook?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

We've also hashed this question around quite a bit. Team A is down to only 6 players. A6 replaces A1. Before the clock starts, A6 turns an ankle and is unable to continue, even after Team A takes a time-out. Can A1 return to the game.

Seems like the answer is now a definitive "yes". 8.2 Situation B addresses it almost directly, although it deals with a free throw action. But a player who just came out of the game is allowed back in to replace an injured player, even though the clock didn't start.

Can you tell I'm having fun going through my new casebook?

Scrapper1:

Everybody will tell you that I am the author of this Casebook Play. There was a very long thread about this situation. I sent this play to Mary Struckhoff for a ruling and the NFHS put into the Casebook word-for-word, and the NFHS ruling is the ruling that I vigorously defended in the thread.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Scrapper1:

Everybody will tell you that I am the author of this Casebook Play. There was a very long thread about this situation. I sent this play to Mary Struckhoff for a ruling and the NFHS put into the Casebook word-for-word, and the NFHS ruling is the ruling that I vigorously defended in the thread.

MTD, Sr.

Ahem!
I recall proposing this play here on the board; you did provide the eventually correct answer before the NFHS ruled, however.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ahem!
I recall proposing this play here on the board; you did provide the eventually correct answer before the NFHS ruled, however.

Well, I edited your post to make it more readable, , and that is the wording I sent to Mary, so maybe it should be MTD, Sr. and Snaqs.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Well, I edited your post to make it more readable, , and that is the wording I sent to Mary, so maybe it should be MTD, Sr. and Snaqs.

MTD, Sr.

Ouch!

I'll take secondary credit, that's ok. It'll keep my ego in check. My id, on the other hand.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ouch!

I'll take secondary credit, that's ok. It'll keep my ego in check. My id, on the other hand.

Okay, I agree to Snaqs and MTD, Sr.

MTD, Sr.

[mdray]

not to interrupt the mutual admiration society dialog going on...
I don't have the new rulebook yet - is allowing that sub back into the game, prior to time running off the clock, true even if there are other available subs on the bench?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mdray

not to interrupt the mutual admiration society dialog going on...
I don't have the new rulebook yet - is allowing that sub back into the game, prior to time running off the clock, true even if there are other available subs on the bench?

No, only when no others are available.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ahem!
I recall proposing this play here on the board; you did provide the eventually correct answer before the NFHS ruled, however.

Ahem! Ahem! Cough! Cough!

Let's not leave out the one who detailed the reasons why this ruling makes sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Ahem! Ahem! Cough! Cough!

Let's not leave out the one who detailed the reasons why this ruling makes sense.

True enough. IIRC, I had them playing with 4.