What would Nevada do?
 

Did the Illinois Association of Christian Schools state tournament this weekend, which is comprised of just a handful of small Christian schools through the state.

In championship boys game, Coach wanted to honor his seniors at end of game as it was out of reach, down 25. He subbed out each senior to a very emotional team, coach, and crowd. Coach had discussion with partner and other coach and he subbed out last senior only to play with four for last minute.

Never gave it a second thought.

Even Nevada would get misty as I did.

Rules rulz....most of the time.

Good job.

Well, I'm not that good, but coming from you, Thanks!

Well it WAS the Illinois state tourney for Christian schools:D

This organization is not under the jurisdiction of the NF, so who cares what he thinks? ;)

Peace

Either they use Fed rules or they don't. ;)

So the motto has now been amended. :D

I'll have to make note of that.

I did a similar Christian organization Tournament one time and they used NF rules in principle, but they played halves instead of quarters and there were other little regulations that were not under the NF umbrella.

Peace

And if this league had a rule variation that stipulated it was legal to play with 4 if the coach wants to sit all of his seniors, then it would be apples. Otherwise, it's oranges.

I'm not arguing with what he did, however. I think it was a no-brainer.

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi ...
 

And if that senior sat on the wooden bench, and he got a sliver, that got infected, and his right buttocks got gangrene, and if he had to get his right buttocks amputated, and if he needed that right buttocks to realize his dream of someday being an underwear model, then the lawyers would have a field day.

When the FED gives us the responsibility of determining whether a player who has sustained a splinter injury must remain on the court until he's been examined by an appropriate medical authority, we'll be in even more danger.

JR,
From a coach's standpoint, I applaud your view on this play. I understand fully that rules are rules, BUT, every once in a while common sense makes, well, sense.

If you look at the intent of the rules, which state in part, "Every individual using these rules is responsible for prudent judgment with respect to each contest, athlete and facility, and each athlete is responsible for exercising caution and good sportsmanship."

In this particular case, this was being done for ALL of the right reasons. Bravo to JR and to Fuller30 in this case.

On a related topic, I have never understood why the game of basketball is so concerned about a team playing SHORT. I fully understand why teams can't play with too many, but how on God's green Earth is playing short some kind of advantage. In soccer, a team can play with as few as 7 players (out of 11) with no penalty. I would fully support a rule change that modifies the current rule. Interestingly, as we all know, a team with ONE PLAYER can continue to play a game so long as they have a chance to win the game. FORCING teams to play five players (including not being able to start with fewer than five) causes situations (such as the one in the OP) that cause controversies unneccesarily.

I would applaud the change, frankly; it would give the coach an added tool for discipline, too.

If you recall, it worked for coach Norman Dale and he won a state championship.