Subs with multiple fouls
 

NFHS rules. False double foul. Personal foul by A1 followed by dead ball contact technical foul by B1. The personal foul results in the automatic bonus. So we're going to shoot 2 free throws at one basket and then two free throws at the other basket.

There are 3 subs at the table before the personal foul is called. Assuming none of the subs is going to attempt the free throws for the technical foul, when are these subs allowed to enter the game by rule?

A) Immediately after the two fouls are reported
B) After the first free throw for the personal foul
C) After the second free throw for the personal foul
D) Before the final (second) free throw for the technical foul
E) After all the free throws are completed

I'd appreciate any rule citation you can give for your answer. Thanks.

Bring 'em in immediately. The correct answer is A. You only restrict entry on multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls, not personal and technicals. NFHS rule 3-3-1(c).

Agreed, which means the correct answer is actually ALL OF THE ABOVE. :)

Subs can enter during any of these opportunities.

Whether one of the subs is going to attempt a FT for the technical makes no diference.

I bring 'em in (A). I don't overrule my P if he does otherwise. That's OOO imo.

Another interesting question for rookies is what are ramifications of bringing them in at one point over another point.

Not that I'd stop my partner from doing it, or even ask about it later, but wouldn't B be the correct answer? False double fouls are really just two separate fouls, right?

Under NCAA, I'm going with E. It's kind of like "when are players allowed along the FT lane?" If the ball might stay live, then let the players along the line and let the subs in; otherwise, no players, no subs (and, yes, I recognize the analogy doesn't hold exactly).

I have to admit, that this was my thought, too. The rule specifically says "During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls. . ." And here we have multiple free throws (due to the automatic bonus) that have resulted from a personal foul. It seems to fit the rule exactly.

Somebody convince me why it doesn't.

P.S. -- the reason I post this is because I was asked by another pretty good official who chose E in his game last night.

To Rich's point, I should have clarified. . . this was a high school game. Sorry for any confusion. I'll edit the original post.

It seems to me that part of the reasoning for allowing subs to enter after a 1st of 2 free throws is to allow the coaches to manage their personnel according to the game situation, which includes, which of their players they want on the lane for rebounding a possible missed free throw. Since the subs are ready, and there will be no available rebound, bring them in, at any of the moments listed. And keeping with this thought, after all the free throws have been attempted, if there are eliglble subs at the table, bring them in, which allows the coaches to manage the game situation that has resulted from the new game situation after the free throws.

While all that is probably true, that's WAY over thinking it to me. :)

I can see B as the answer but I would have no problem with bringing them in immediately.

If there's one thing I'm 100% sure of, it's that the answer is NOT E.

Can anybody cite me an NFHS rule that will deny entry to substitutes who have met the restrictions of NFHS rule 3-3-1(d)?

NFHS 3-3-1(d)--"If entry is at any other time than between quarters, and a substitute who is entitled and ready to enter reports to the scorer, the scorer shall use a sounding device or game horn, if, or as soon as, the ball is dead and the clock is stopped."

Someone please tell me howinthehell this rule does NOT apply to the situation described in the original post? We already know the free throw restrictions outlined in 3-3-1(c) don't apply.

You have no rules justification under NFHS rules to NOT immediately bring in those subs.

You may know this, JR, but "we" don't. Why don't they apply? I agree that if they don't apply, then the answer is A. But that's an "if" I'm not ready to concede yet.

Rule 3-3-1(c) is telling us what the substitution restrictions are for multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls. The situation described does NOT have multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls. It has multiple free throws resulting from personal and technical fouls. Therefore we can't use 3-3-1(c). It ain't applicable. If it was applicable, the rulesmakers wouldn't have specified personal fouls only. That means we have to look and see which other rule is applicable. And the only one available that is applicable is 3-3-1(d).

Rules rulz!

See if any of you can find something that states you can't bring the subs in as soon as the fouls are reported. Also see if you can find anything that states that you can't bring another legally reported sub(s) in after any one of the free throws in the sequence also. I don't know of any rule that says you can't but I'm sure willing to learn.

Y'all think too damn much. :D

Another pretty good official wouldn't allow a sub to come in to shoot either the first or second free throws for the technical foul? Even though NFHS rule 8-3 specifically says that's legal? And he wouldn't allow the other 3 subs to enter at the same time?

Hmmmmmm.........

So, you're saying a double foul is its own entity, rather than simply two separate fouls? That's what it boils down to, it seems.

The way I see the situation, it has multiple free throws from a personal foul followed by multiple free throws from a technical foul.

New Sitch:
A1 fouled while shooting an unsuccessfull three point shot. During the first FT, Coach A is in the ear of the T, earning himself a seatbelt immediately after the first FT goes in. Subs are at the table as the T reports the T.

Are you letting them in now rather than after the 2nd (of 3) FT?

1) Naw, that's too deep for a dummy like me. I'm saying that I just try to follow a rule that I can show someone if questioned. That 3-3-1(d) in this situation.

2) Why wouldn't you? You now have left multiple free throws resulting from personal and technical fouls, not multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls only. NFHS rule 3-3-1(c) no longer is applicable and 3-3-1(d) is.

You mean like...

See if you can find something that states a player on the floor with the ball can do anything other than pass, shoot, start a dribble, request a time-out or sit up if he's on his back.

Y'all were thinking too damn much. :D

I've got multiple free throws resulting from a personal foul, followed by multiple free throws resulting from a technical foul. The word "only" isn't in 3-3-1C (at least not in my IAABO book). Methinks you're thinking too much.

I'm going A, but prefer to wait for E...
 

...unless we need to get a player off the floor, or if coach wants a player off the floor, or if coach wants a sub to enter to attempt the throws for the T.

Easier to manage subs later if I had my druthers.

There is ZERO rules basis for making the subs wait until all FTs are shot.

Agreed. E isn't even an option IMO. I don't see how anything except A or B can even be considered.

Rules are (generally) written assuming "nothing else happens." So, if there are FTs from one PF, then subs come in before the last FT.

Nothing seems to be mentioned about T's or double fouls (what if in the OP the second foul had been a PF -- perhas B2 fouls A2 during the first FT for the PF), of false double fouls (what if the order was reversed -- dead ball T followed by PF during one of the FTs for the T -- do we still wait until the last PF FT?)

In case of a False Double Foul or a False Multiple Foul, each foul carries its' own penalty.

We are instructed to treat the fouls as two separate occurrences and I believe we should administer and conduct the game accordingly. IMO. that means I will have two separate and independent actions.

I choose B for the 3 subs that are at the table in OP. Another thought is, the method of bringing in subs during multiple FT's was created to prevent delays. If we chose A, we must also allow any sub that reports to the table before the ball is at the Free-thrower's disposal but after the 3 subs were beckoned, to enter the game. Here come the delays that the rule is trying to prevent.

Your logic is lacking in...logic. Just because there is also a technical foul does not negate the fact that there are multiple free throws resulting from a personal foul. I guess it depends on what the definition of "and" is ;)
Yep. But you're hardly the first person to tell me that. :p

I agree with this point. However, if a T has been called, I'm going to let the coach remove the offending player ASAP if that is his desire.

I agree with this in practice.

Intent and purpose of the rule. The reason for allowing subs before the last free throw on a personal foul is to have only one pause before the ball may first be back in play, instead of two or three. That doesn't apply here.

Sure it does; it cuts down on 1 of those potential pauses.

So make it after all the free throws for the personal.

You could, if the rule supported it. Of course, the lack of rule support doesn't mean you can't do it; it just means you can't back it up with a rule.

Personally, I'm likely going with A in practice because I prefer to get an offending player (for the T) out ASAP if his coach is trying to help me out. But the thought process for justifying it is too difficult, so if questioned on it, I'd have to fall back on game management rather than the rule.

Why does it matter? If you bring in subs before the play can continue then who cares when you bring them in? All that matters are when the last FT is taken all the appropriate subs are in the game. Before that is irrelevant. I have never really thought much about it until now. Subs can come in to shoot a T so why worry if they come in or not if they are not shooting a T?

I think this entire thread is over-thinking an irrelevant issue. All that matters is players are in the game before the last FT. Whether it is a personal foul, a technical foul or some other kind of foul is really not going to change anything in the outcome of the game.

Peace

I'm so glad you offered your opinion on an irrelevant issue. Thanks.

I think most all officials agree with this and would likely do just that. But as far as the OP goes, the subs were there before any of this happened. So they likely are for one of the other 9 players on the court. If you allow them in you may still have B1 on the floor.

But a great way to learn and I don't have anything better to do today? :D

True, but it's a low risk (as Rut indicates, nothing's really going to go wrong if you let them in) high reward move.

First we would have a mess on our hands. A contact foul during a T FT sounds ugly. :)

IMO, allow subs before first T FT, before second T FT and before last PF FT.

Still waiting for a rules citation that states you can't bring the subs in immediately......

And y'all are still thinking too damn much. :D

And I'm waiting for the evidence that 3-3-1c doesn't apply here.

And it's in my nature.

You'll probably gets your when I get mine! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/woot.gif

I'd give you one except I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I forget a lot of old threads. Jog my memory.

The evidence is that rule refers strictly and only to multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls.

That's a completely different situation than the OP.

But carry on carrying on......:D

I still believe it should be treated as 2 separate actions. Just as rule 10 tells us to penalize both fouls of a False Double Foul separately. I will administer them separately first one then the other. I am applying 3.3.1C to multiple free throws resulting from a personal foul, then I will apply 3.3.1D to the free throws resulting from the T.

Where is that dead horse picture! :D

Still looking for "only" in 3-3-1c. :D

Try looking for "technical foul" instead. And let me know if you find it. Maybe it's hiding behind Waldo.

Wow...the threads aren't old....YOU ARE! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ges/twitch.gif

If you're talking about that "roll over" thread, that one was an interpretation of rules language. We disagreed on the interpretation of what constitutes a "roll" and we still do. And we probably will until the FED issues something on it (if ever). Is that what you're talking about?

This thread is different. There is just no rules language that I know of that says you can't bring the subs in immediately after reporting the personal and technical fouls. And 3-3-01(d) says you can.

I think Scratch is right on the money. I also don't think there's a big deal in going with A either.

Rut, you need some Christmas cheer. :D

Actually, the rules, as written, support keeping the subs out until the personal foul FTs have only 1 remaining. The TF FT's don't occur until after the PF penalty is completed. When it comes time for TF FT's the sub rules that allow a sub in to take the TF FTs come into play.

I'm more inclined to go with Snaqwell's answer and go with B.

Y'All ??? Are You That Kid In The Video ???
 

"Cogito ergo sum." (René Descartes)

I ergo'd sum but then I just had to ergo sum more! :D I think.

Yes, but there's no language to interpret in the traveling case play. The ruling in 4.44.5B says a player who is on the floor, holding the ball, can pass, shoot, start a dribble, request a time-out or sit up if he's on his back. Those are the ONLY things the ruling says the player CAN do.

Further, it specifically says that he can sit up if he's flat out his back. So why wouldn't the ruling include that he could roll to his side if it was allowed? Why would it tell us one thing he can do but ignore another if it was allowed?

I guess we can imagine. Mr. FED says, "Well, actually he can sit up if he's on his back and he can roll to his side but we just decided not to include that part in the ruling." http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/santa.gif

Sorry Woddy but that makes no sense. If he were allowed to roll to his side, they would have included that with the sitting up statement.

Merry Christmas! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ges/santa2.gif

Sooooo....if the fouls were reversed in this situation and the technical foul preceded the personal foul, you'd keep all subs out until after the technical foul penalty is completed and there is only one FT left for the personal foul penalty? Or would you allow a sub in to shoot one or both of the technical foul FT's as allowed under 8-3, but not let the other eligible subs at the table come in during that same substitution opportunity?

You don't have 4.44.5SitB in your case book? The case book play that says "A1 may pass, shoot, dribble or call a timeout. Once A1 has the ball and is no longer sliding, he/she may not roll OVER."? Somebody steal that case book play? And at Christmas too? :eek:

Case book plays are put out to clarify rules. It's true, it's true.....:D

We disagree. Shrug.

You and your family have a great Christmas too, Tony.

Nope. I would do what I said earlier. As the rules tell us to do.

Nope, I'd let all subs in during the T shots. After the final T shot, the subs at the bench would have to wait until right before the final personal foul FT.

It seems weird, but demz da rulz

Yes, I quoted it. Why did you omit the rest of the ruling? If flat on his/her back, A1 may sit up without violating.

And why didn't you answer my question?

The ruling tells us what the player CAN do. "pass, shoot, dribble or call a timeout...If flat on his/her back, A1 may sit up."

Nowhere does it tell us he can roll over on his side. Wonder why that is?

It's real simple...it's just not there. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/santa.gif

Wait a tick! Is this a variation of Rules Rulz or Rulz Rules or Rulze Rulse :D or whatever it really is? I like "demz da rules, baby!" :D

It's not in the rule. It's in the case play.

Are you really saying a player either laying flat or sitting can't roll to the side while making a pass?

We disagree. Shrug.

What rules?

Are you really saying that 3-3-1(c) and 3-3-1(d) should both be used on the same situation? You'd apply 2 different rules to one situation?

Shudder.....

Or am I reading something wrong?

No. It is two separate situations.

The penalty for rule 10 , False Double Fouls, tells us to penalize them as two separate acts. So, why should we not administer them as two separate acts.

Just curious, do you have me marked as "ignore" on your preferences? Or are you just thinking about marking me as "ignore"? Honestly, I don't mind getting my chops busted. :D I usually learn something just after it happens!

If they roll all the way onto their side with the ball, no, that is "rolling over" and the case play supports that interpretation by excluding that action from the list of permissible actions.

If they rock towards the side in the motion of passing the ball....no violation.

Sort of like a standing player taking a step forward with their pivot foot that would be a travel if had they not just released the ball before the foot came back down.

Yup, and we do penalize them as separate acts. But nowhere in any rule that I know of does it state that different substitution rules should be applied in any false double foul. You use one of the ones listed in 3-3-1, not 2.

I don't have anybody marked to "ignore" and never have as long as I've posted here, Scratch. If I disagree with somebody, the kinder, gentler JR will just politely tell them so. And verse-visa.

And there's where we disagree. I say that it is a roll but it is not a roll over. And I also say the case play supports that with it's usage of the word "over".

Who's right?

We can argue forever but until we get a definitive interpretation from the FED, who knows? Until then we're just going around in circles.

JMO....obviously.

Why use one when you have two separate acts. Apply the substitution rules that apply to each act. It just makes sense to me. But my senses have been questioned many times before. :)

Believe me I know. I hate to do the "agree to disagree" thing, but I am not sure how much longer I can discuss this irrelevant (as JRut calls it) issue. :p Merry Christmas to all who are reading and I wish all of you best of times to come.

Makes no difference.

The point is the case play tells us what is legally allowed and "roll" is NOT listed. Pass, shoot, dribble, call timeout or sit up. Those are the ONLY legal actions listed. I don't see how you can disagree with that when it's printed in black and white. :shrug:

But I'll leave you along now. Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas!

The point is it does not matter what you do. It does not matter in the end when they come in and that is why the issue is irrelevant. Worrying about it is not going to change the result. Actually I doubt most people would even care either way when evaluating you. So why sit up night and worry about it? I guess some people have to worry about something. :rolleyes:

Peace

Dude I am fine. I think some of you need to stop worrying about things that no one is going to call you on or care that much about. I have honestly never had a single person ever bring this up or try to challenge this issue on any level until I am reading this here. Which is why I said what you do is not that important. I think some of you need to get the stick out of your behinds and worry about the things that are going to really get you in trouble. This is not something that will either way.

Peace

Why are you sitting up all night worrying about other people sitting up all night worrying about something? Is it because some people have to worry about something?

And why am I worrying about you worrying about some people worrying about something?

Does too!

But don't sit up all night worrying about it. Or sit up all night worrying about me worrying about it. Or......:p

I was in bed by 10:30 pm.

And I wasn't up at 6:30 am posting either...only old people do that! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/santa.gif

Maybe he was posting from his phone while waiting for his lunch to be served at Denny's. :D

Jeff, I'm certainly not up worrying about this. I personally find these esoteric discussions useful but maybe that's just me.

Stop taking what I said so personal. You can discuss anything as many ways as you want. But no one outside of this board is really going to care or notice as long as the subs are in the game before the ball can be put back into play. And during a T players can come in the game to shoot, so this might be a moot point anyway. But hey, discuss away. And when someone makes a big deal out of this either way, let us all know so we can mark the first time that happens. ;)

Peace

I'm not...but ok. :confused:

I fully acknowledge very few people if anybody will care about this.

Merry Christmas everyone.

I think it's an interesting exercise in rule study; but I didn't lose any sleep over it.

This might be a trick question.
 

When they are beckoned, they become players. Even if mistakenly so. I think.

Whatever you say man. ;)

Peace

lol

That's because us old people sleep like babies. We wake up crying every two hours and have to go to the bathroom.

Admit it, you had nightmares over this thread.

Substitute "just went" for "have to go" and the babies part will be correct. I hope the "old people" isn't exactly like that.

Jeff, you really need to stop worrying about this so much. Worrying about it is not going to change the result. So why sit up all night and worry about it? I guess some people have to worry about something. :rolleyes:

I really worry about you sometimes.

- from the caring, kinder gentler JR.....(who worries about wimmen too)

Or substitute "have to have our Depends wrung out and put back on..."