I need to ask about a sitch that happened today at a girls' JV tournament. Team B had seven names in the book, but only six bodies on the floor, because one girl was "sick". I'm still not sure whether she ever played. But her name was in the book, and she was apparently eligible to play. Game goes along. End of third quarter B5 fouled out. Coach says he will play on with four players. We go along. With about 5 minutes left in the fourth quarter, table buzzes my partner over and there's this little conference, and then I get called over. It appears that coach B had another player who had played in the first and second quarters, but was now sitting the bench. My partner thought that the rule was that if there was a player available, she was required to play. I went over to coach B, and asked about #34. He said he wanted to play without her, because he was saving her quarters for the varsity part ofthe tournament later today. (In Oregon, HS players are only allowed to play in 5 quarters in one day). I told him he was required to play her, since she was eligible and available. There was a good deal of discussion, but I finally insisted that she play or the coach could forfeit. He finally put her in, and she finished the game.

The "sick" girl was dressed down, and there, but he wouldn't put her in. I don't know why she couldn't have just stood in the corner of the floor, so the team could finish the game, but he refused to put her in, too.

Now comes the question. I can't find anywhere that it definitely says she must play, but several refs all agree that it's the rule. 3-1-1 says, "Each team consists of five players, one of whom is the captain." and then there's a 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."

I suppose it all hinges on that little "if" -- if a team has no substitutes. In my situation, there was a substitute, so the if doesn't apply, and the implication is that #34 must play.

Furthermore, he tried to claim that she was injured and therefore, not "available." I said that in that case, she would be injured for the varsity game as well. But this istn't really my jurisdiction, is it? But it felt as though he were manipulating the rules unfairly, and I'm hoping that perhaps 2-3 would apply here.

If he had just had her leave the building at half-time, we'd never have known, and they'd have finished (and lost) the game with four players, and she would have gotten her precious 3 varsity quarters.

So what are the ins and outs of this situation?

[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 28th, 2002 at 01:23 AM]

Ask this question loud enough and we will get an editorial revision next year in the rule book. I think this rule was written with the idea you want to play with as many players as you can on the floor. Not thinking about that situation where you want to keep a player out of the game so they could play another game.

The "ins and outs" are exactly what you did,Juulie. Good job!Handled perfectly.

If you can't find it in the rulebook,always check the same section in the casebook.From the ruling in CB3.1.1Sit.,"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 less than five players".

NO, NO, NO,...we as officials should not get into "counting" quarters for various players on various teams. THAT IS NOT OUR RESPONSABILITY!
Just as it is not our problem if a disqualified player from Friday night is playing in a game Saturday night.
That is an administrative procedure. If the school wants to take a chance on playing inelgible players...that is their problem, not ours. As officials we administer things that happen on the court...not off the court.

As far as a Coach not wanting to play a player...fine, lets play on. Maybe the kid is getting disciplined, maybe he/she really is hurt, maybe he/she is inelgible because of quarters, etc. (THERE IS NO SUBSTITUE AVAILABLE)
Again, IMO, not my job to "make" a player participate if a Coach dosen't want him/her to play.
Some of us talk about Official's liability...can you imagine "making" a player play after the Coach has told you he/she is injured and then he/she gets hurt...OUCH!

Dude

[Edited by RookieDude on Dec 28th, 2002 at 09:01 AM]

IMO,Rainmaker handled the play properly as per the rulebook,Dude.She didn't make the sick substitute play.She did make the other substitute play,as per the rules quoted above.

Did I read you right above? Are you saying that we shouldn't enforce that rule?

Be careful with your original statement Rook, in some states we do have to worry about quarters, games, etc. Don't ask me why, it is because the state says so.

As far as this sitch, the second the coach tells me she is hurt, that is fine with me, I don't know one way or the other and I am not about to find out the hard way. Plus, kids are suspended from halves or quarters all the time, who am I to judge, if the coach says the player cannot go in and wants to play with four, so be it. As far as the kid in the book in street clothes goes, he/she is not a legal sub, so you cannot put her in, but it is smart to put her in the book. If the game is suspended, and picks up a week later, the kid can play w/o penalty. Doesn't happen often, but it is a heads up move by the coach.

Yes, to the extent of wiping the score of the board at the end of each quarter in “6 quarter” practice games between schools. This so the quarters/games don't count against the total.

Where do you read that Juulie was counting quarters? :confused:

originally posted by BktBallRef
Where do you read that Juulie was counting quarters? __________________________________________________ _________
Originally posted by rainmaker
He said he wanted to play without her, because he was saving her quarters for the varsity part ofthe tournament later today. (In Oregon, HS players are only allowed to play in 5 quarters in one day). I told him he was required to play her, since she was eligible and available. There was a good deal of discussion, but I finally insisted that she play or the coach could forfeit. He finally put her in, and she finished the game.
__________________________________________________ __________
Coach said he was "saving her guarters"...what if he had said "she has played all her quarters"? Do you go back and check the previous game's books? IMO, NO!
My point is...the Coach says "Blah, Blah, Blah" it dosen't matter...if he dosen't want her to play then THERE IS NO SUBSTITUE AVAILABLE...play on!
__________________________________________________ _________
Originally posted by rainmaker
Furthermore, he tried to claim that she was injured and therefore, not "available." I said that in that case, she would be injured for the varsity game as well
__________________________________________________ __________
Am I reading you right, JR? Is this what you would do?

Again guys and gals, if a Coach tells me his Sub is not available to participate...then IMO the intent of the rule has been met.

Dude
P.S. Julie...you seem like a very conscientious official and a very likable person...but check out one of the Syn. for conscientious in "Webster's New World Thesaurus"...STRICT.
My motto is "watch out about being overly officious". :)

That's exactly what I'd do,Dude! First the coach tells you he isn't going to play a player because of "playing too many quarters".Then,when the referee shoots that one down(by rule),the coach now tries to claim that the same player is sick,instead. I call that-"trying to blow smoke up my a$$".:D

My motto is "Don't try to make up your own rules when you referee,or your a$$ is grass!".:D I can see not forcing a sick player to play.That's just common sense.I can't see trying to use this one though,UNLESS it was communicated to, and approved by, the R before the game.

originally posted by Jurasic Referee
...or your a$$ is grass!".

__________________________________________________ _________

...is that what you've been smokin' "Big Dog"!

Dude

I think rainmaker handled it perfectly. She didn't require the sick player to play. Good judgment. The other player was quite available (not sick, not injured) so according to the rules, that team has to use her. Good application of rules, IMHO.

I think the coach could have avoided the whole thing by not having the player that he/she was "saving" come out for the second half.

Z

Big dog?
http://www.gifs.net/animate/history.gif
This is more like it!:D

This is what he was trying to do, and I required her to come out. That was the whole problem. He shouldn't have played her in the FIRST half, so that he'd have some flexibility in the end.

I wasn't trying to be a tight-a@@, and I didn't want to meddle in the quarters thing. That's why I asked the question, in the first place. Where do we draw the line on our responsibility?? The book implies that if a player is "available", she has to play. Okay, what is available, and when do we enforce it

I suppose looking back over it, I could have said, "Okay, she's sick, that's fine." Then I would have told the opponent coach, who also happened to be the administrator for the tournament, "She's sick so she's not going to play." Then HE could have decided what to do about the varsity game. Is that passing the buck? Is that ducking responsibility? I'm not sure that there are clear guidelines here.

After this game, I went to watch a different tournament, and a vet official I was talking to there said I did exactly right. But there are still a lot of questions. I'd like to see a long discussion about this one, to help sort it out.

What if coach just sends that player to the locker room when you tell him she has to play? She is no longer available to play. What can you do then?

I can't see you forcing this player into the game in this situation. The coach wanted and got the two quarters from her that he could have her play and still leave her available for the varsity game. He kept her on the bench to support her teammates and watch the end of the game but never intended to play her. I think she should be allowed to sit with her team even if she will not be playing any more.

The NF rule book is not geared to handle these multiple game, multiple team, total quarters of play eligibility issues because you don't have to deal with them as referees in a single game. And NF does not impose these total quarters of play limits, states do. This causes problems when reconciling a state eligibility provision with the NF rulebook that does not recognize these provisions. Coaches have to deal with balancing both sets of rules, and this coach handled it the way I would. I wouldn't tell my player to go hide or that she couldn't stay with the team in case the ref would force her to play.

Most importantly, by making this girl play you are punishing a varsity player for a JV coach's decision to allow her to stay with her team after her available quarters play had ended. Do you really think that is in the spirit of the NFHS rules? I think your reading of the rule book needs to be tempered with some perspective of what is happening here, and the fact that the rulebook does not account for state policies of this nature.

Great summation and logic,Coach.I agree with what you are saying above.The problem still is,though,that you've still got fairly specific language in the rule book to overcome.I think that the spirit of the rule was to make sure that everybody on the bench would be accorded an opportunity to play in short-handed situations.That's not really relevant in this situation,and the coach certainly isn't gaining any advantage by not playing the kid.

Maybe the best way is to get both coaches together,go over the situation,and try and get an agreement with them that it's OK to go with four players in this specific case.What the official doesn't want to get into is a situation where he/she makes a ruling that the other coach will want to protest in some way after the game(yes,I know that the FED theoretically doesn't allow protests).

Hey, let's get them together and see if we can ignore the three second rule :) I, like Tim, would like to see an official ruling on this matter as it has come up in discussion before. My personal feeling is not to get involved, if the coach says she can't play, then my ruling is that there is no substitute available. I wouldn't allow her to sit out the third quarter and play the fourth, but if he wants to finish short-handed, fine. The penalty is very severe for a player getting too many quarters in and I am not going to be responsible for that. Suppose you make her play her fourth quarter in the JV game and she is sitting on the bench in the varsity game after playing her final quarter and they become shorthanded and some official makes her play...Use some common sense and don't be over-officious, stay clear from this mess, JMHO.

My point is that the coach was counting quarters, not Juulie.

BTW, the coach didn't say, "she has played all her quarters?" did he? ;)

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."

The difficulty in this situation is that, IMHO, EITHER way she handled it would have been fine.
Three problems that need to be looked at:

1. A team MUST begin the game with five players. It does not say that the team can NOT play with less, just that it must START the game with 5. Fairly clear on the surface, but a deeper look makes you wonder (see point 3)

2. Who is the arbitor of "substitute"? Should it be the official or the coach? Situation last year with my wife's team. Girl gets lippy with an official and then her. Sits her tail down for the rest of the game. Would an official MAKE her play if later in the game everyone was either injured or fouled out but 4? She was clearly NOT injured and had fouls to give, therefore "eligible" to play. What if a coach is punishing a player for something in practice and is making the player sit on the bench for the game to teach a lesson? Where does it say we as officials are arbitors of who MUST play.

3. Let's say in this situation that the player did not go in because the coach said she wasn't eligible. (For whatever reason) Now the game gets tighter and obviously having this player on the floor would make the difference. Horn sounds and ready to come in the game is our "ineligible" player. Do you let them in?

My two cents, if the coach says the player is not going to play, for whatever reason, that is fine. They are the coach, I am not. BUT once the players status has been determined, that is the end. I would NOT let the player in (situation 3) to play because the coach told me they were not ready. (To REALLY throw a monkey wrench, what if the 5th player was injured and could not get back into the game right away)?
I will side with those who say the coach should decide if they are going to play with 5 or not. BUT if they have a player who can play and does not, that is it for the rest of the game.

If he doesn't want her to play, he has options. If he says she is injured, I don't inquire about the injury. Okay, that's the end of it. If he doesn't want to fib, she should either be in street clothes or not be on the bench.

My advice is to forfeit the game and go watch Hoosiers!

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one confused about this. What the situation comes down to is that this was a varsity player who was helping out the JV. He only had six JV girls, and one of them was sick -- although why she was dressed down and sittin on the bench, I still don't understand. So he pulled in a varsity junior to help out. I understand why he didn't want to play her, but I have a lot of other questions such as, why did he play her in the first two quarters, why not wait and see? Why not put in the "sick" player and let her just stand in the corner of the floor, thus making up five players, and saving the varsity player? Why did the other coach, who was also the administrator for the tournament, refuse to allow them to play with four? Especially since he was winning by quite a bit, and then very nearly lost? Okay, the player in question was very good, and I guess the opponent coach gained a distinct advantage by reducing the quarters in the varsity game that she could play. Was that unfair of him? He's not the person who originally pointed it out, but he jumped on the rule when he realized the situation. and incidentally, the administrator coach who insisted on following the rule did win the varsity game, and not by an awful lot. Hmmm.....

And then the thing about counting quarters, I know we are not responsible. Fine. Who is? What is the penalty? If a varsity game is in progress and then a coach says that a player on the other team is now playing in her sixth quarter, do we just shrug and say whatever? Do we not count but penalize when it's brought to our attention?

Okay, almost none of these questions are really answerable. So what do I do next time?

Where's the Advantage?
 

Forcing a player to play vs. playing with four? If coach A doesn't want to play a player for whatever reason, I would abide by his decision. Is he gaining an advantage by only playing 4? No. So what's the problem? I'm sure B coach isn't going to complain so I just don't see why you need to make trouble. Don't we have enough to worry about rather than go looking for problems? Just my personal opinion...

Mregor

Coach determines the team on the floor
 

Remember Hoosiers where Gene Hackman sits out the kid that won't pass and plays with four players?

I agree with Mregor.

I pride myself in being knowlegable in the rules, but there are times and situation where common sense must rule the day.

If a coach doesn't want to play a player, I'm not forcing it for any reason. The only person/team put at a disadvantage in this situation is the team playing shorthanded. If it's OK for that coach, it's OK for me -- regardless of the level.

And if there is a quarter rule involved (which we are not charged with enforcing in most jurisdictions), we don't want to try to dictate coach's decisions that tie the team up later.

How about this situation?

(1) Player has used up all eligibility (quarters) and is on the bench (with fouls remaining). Since the game officials aren't concerned with enforcing this type of rule, what's the difference between this and the original situation?

Rich

Julie on the question about what to do if a coach brings to our attention that an opponent is in violation of the quarter rule... We need to tell him to refer that to the state association, I would not get involved in that in any way, shape, or form. That is between his school and the state association. The penalty in our state is forfeiture of the games that were won with the ineligible player.

Getting back to the original situation, I want to point out a couple of things. I WAS NOT looking for trouble. I wasn't sitting there at a time-out thinking, "Gee, I wonder if there's some infraction or detail that I'm ignoring, hmmm..." The table notified me, and coach A, who had plenty of subs, was pushing the issue. I would have let it go, if coach A didn't care. And, in fact, team B, with four players on the floor, would have gained an advantage, since they would have had a good varsity player available for another quarter of the varsity game, which team A won by a very slim margin.

The problem became an issue for me because coach A was "making trouble." I stood and considered for several seconds before I jumped to one side or the other of the fence. If we are not required to require five players, I say to coach A, "That's not my jurisdiction, you'll have to contact the State Association." If it's a rule, I say to coach B, "Five players required if they're available. 30 seconds."

The only other possible course of action for me, I think, would have been to say to coach A, "Player 34 is injured and thus not available. If you think it contrary to the State Association rules that player 34 play in the varsity game after being injured in the JV game, you have to talk to the Association."

And for the life of me, I still can't understand why 27, who was dressed down couldn't have just gone and stood on the corner of the floor and not actually participated, but been on the floor to make five players, and thus save 34 for the varsity game.

Okay so I'm looking back over this trhead and going back through the rule book, case book, handbook, and (old) officials' manual, I'm finding only three references that could even remotely relate to this issue.

Rule 3-1-1-Note: A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitute to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five.

Case 3.1.1 Situation: Ruling:...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.

Officials' Manual: page 20, item 118, Reminders:...It is a direct technical foul against a coach who fails to replace an injured or disqualified player in 30 seconds when a substitute is available.

It looks to me as if the whole thing hinges on the word "available." What does it mean, and who interprets it? If it's up to the coach, then I was wrong to enforce it. But there's no way that player wasn't available. She was dressed, had played, hadn't left the game injured (and by the coach's description wasn't injured or sick), she was in the book, and sitting on the bench. Only the coach's desires for the varsity game made her unavailable.

And remember, it's possible he would have won the varsity game if this player had not played, so there was an advantage issue.

I wasn't going to call Howard, but now I think I will, just to set the issue to rest in my own mind.

I don't know what the NF rulebook says, but the NCAA rule is:

Rule 3-1
Art. 2. Each team may continue to play with fewer than five players when all other squad members are not eligible or able to play. (Emphasis added.)

This seems to address many of the questions raised here. In the original case, one girl wasn't able to play because of sickness, and another wasn't able to play because of state rules. No problem.

Maybe the NF will see this thread and revise the language in their Rule 3 to match the NCAA language. :)

Rule 3
ART. 1 . . . 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.

Definitions
SECTION 34 PLAYERS/BENCH PERSONNEL/SUBSTITUTES/TEAM MEMBERS
ART. 1 . . . A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.
ART. 2 . . . 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).
ART. 3 . . . 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.
ART. 4 . . . A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

Case Book
NUMBER OF PLAYERS REQUIRED
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.


I'm looking at the books and found the above.

Definitions dont really define substitute very well. Rule 3 says if it has no substitutes, it must continue with less.

My question...should we be troubling trouble here? If a coach decides to play shorthanded, who is disadvantaged? There have been numerous examples used here....quarter eligibility, injury, illness, punnishment etc where this could happen at the JV level. I seriously doubt it would happen at Varsity but you never know.

My thoughts...why trouble trouble? If Team A has started 5 and wants to save a player for the varsity game by playing with 4 later, what disadvantage has this created for Team B? By rule, a team must start with 5. It can finish with less if it has no more subs. I ask you this....should we as officials decide for a team who is an "available" sub?

The case book situation is different where a coach would sit a player already in the game to even up the sides and go 4 on 4.

I'm leaning towards the "I got nothing" camp on this one especially at the JV level.

I am originally from Illinois, where we sometimes play two tournament games in a day and we don't have these quarters of play limits (Normal Community West played two games in the Peoria Richwoods touranament on Friday). Add to this that my own team that I coach regularly plays two games in a day, and we have played far more. Suffice to say I don't even like the idea of having to deal with these limits.

JV is a great way for a young varsity player to get some experience against her peers, to be a star. On varsity she may get to play, but be limited in role. Allowing younger players to be in both types of game gives them the varsity experience while also allowing them to develop aspects of their game that they may only be able to develop at the JV level. My AAU players star for their MS teams, and many have to be role players on my team. While they get a valuable experieince playing for me, some will find their MS time most valuable because it allows them to develop their own game. I am all for allowing kids to play as much as possible. Of course, the board that created this wacky limit does not see things the same way I do.

The advantage concept should not be what you are thinking about. The rule was not created with the intent that the coach may have to play a kid in JV, thus imperiling his varsity won-loss record. It is not intended to be a factor in the outcome of varsity games (i.e., you roll the dice when you put a varsity player on your JV bench - it may mean you can't play her in the varsity game). It should only influence a varsity game when the coach makes the decision to play the kid extra JV quarters.

What is good for the player? The player clearly benefits from being able to get some JV time along with her varsity time. But varsity is what really counts, and those games are almost always going to come after the JV games. It isn't the fault of the coach or some nefarious scheme of the coach to take advantage of a rule when the coach plays a kid for two quarters and sits her. That's what the rule is telling the coach he must do. It is a limit (outside the NFHS rules) that is placed on the coach that has created this situation, and he is just managing the playing time to allow a young varsity player to get a little JV time on the side. Neither the player nor the varsity team should have to pay a price for a simple decision to suit a player for a half of basketball in which nob0ody intends for her to play.

I would agree that once the player is declared "ineligible" due to being out of quarters, you should note it in the book and the coach is not free to revisit this determination.

My 2 cents
 

I realize that in this situation, the referee feels the coach to be obviously lying (when the coach said the player was injured or ill), but I would be inclined to abide by what the coach said.

Players indicate to the bench that they need to come out of the game for a hurt or injury all the time and are subbed for during a dead ball. There could be a million reasons why for a illness or injury that we, as refs, did not see or witness.

Keeping a player on the bench because of quarters is not a valid reason by the rule book, but keeping a player on the bench because of injury or illness is. The coach only has to supply the valid reason. The ill/injured player should be on the bench with the team unless adult personnel is with the player in the locker room. I don't think I would have forced the varsity player to participate in this circumstance.

I just don't get it....
 

....I mean, we're talking about forcing a player to forfeit varsity eligibility to play in a JV game.

No way, no how does this fit the spirit of a "quarter played" rule. Players should be used at multiple levels in the manner the coaching staff sees fit. If a coach tells me that the player is unavailable because s/he's playing in the varsity contest, that's good enough for me even if s/he's still sitting on the bench in uniform.

The other coach arguing and trying to get the player to burn eligibility? To me, that's unsporting.

In my opinion, the right way to handle this is to get the ball back into play right away and not give the other coach the time to complain about it.

And since there's a powerplay, remember that the team with four players can ice the puck whenever they want :)

Rich

Maybe because she was wearing an illegal number? :D

Seriously, though, it's best not to inquire as to the minds of coaches. We don't have MRI's powerful enough to sort through everything yet.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

Seriously, though, it's best not to inquire as to the minds of coaches. We don't have MRI's powerful enough to sort through everything yet.

Mark, there has to be substance to create an MR image. :D

Okay, here's what I will do next time. Require the coach to play the girl, until he claims she is injured. At which point I will say to the opponent coach, "I can't require her to play injured. If that creates an eligibility problem in the next game, you'll have to deal with that with the tournament director."

Fronheiser, I just want to point out that I wasn't in the mood to look for trouble, and I wasn't digging for a rule to push the coach up against. I just couldn't remember what the rules were about when a player was available. I didn't require him to go to the other gym and force a varsity player to dress down. This gal had played in my game already, and was dressed, in the book, and on the bench. If that's not available, I don't know what is. And I have had several refs with whom I discussed this, agree that I was correct to require her to play. So, I guess I wasn't totally out of line.

Rainmaker,
We have this rule out here too for some of the state's smallest schools. It says something like if a school only has 15 players on both the JV and Varsity teams, they may have non-seniors play in both games provided no player plays more than 6 quarters. (or maybe it is 5)
Anyway my point is that I did have to deal with this once last year, but it was during the Varsity game. In the 4th quarter one coach came up to me and informed me that a player from the other team had now played too many quarters. I told him to send a tape of the game along with his complaint to the league office, but we would finish the game. He did. He was right. The league ruled the game a forfeit. The office also told me that I handled the situation correctly. Play the game to completion and let them deal with eligibility rules.
After this game I gave some thought to what I would have done if this game were not being filmed. I decided that I would do the same thing. They used to resolve these problems in the days before video tape, and they had this rule back then too.
Now your situation is a bit different because it caused a problem in the first game and then you believe effected the outcome of the second game.
I would simply tell the coach that he has to play the girl or forfeit the game. If they really care about winning the Varsity game, which he is saving her for, then he will simply forfeit the JV game at this point. You didn't force her to play, nor did you break the rule about having to play with five. In short make it the team's decision.
And Ron you missed the point of my earlier post in which I said to forfeit the game and go watch the movie Hoosiers!
The joke was that they did play with 4 in the movie, but that is Hollywood, not real life. That game should have been forfeited too.

This is what I did. I think the mistake I made is that I should have let him off the hook when he claimed the player was sick. Someone besides me could have dealt with the eligibility of a sick player in the varsity game.


But it's based on a true story. Perhaps in Indiana in the 50's they didn't have the rule about available subs.

My name is Rich :)

I disagree with the other refs too, then. I take the rules seriously, but in the end I feel common sense has to rule the day. Common sense dictates that if a coach wants to play shorthanded, you don't argue with him.

Sorry, but I simply feel the varsity game takes precedence. We are told not to be picky when it comes to old uniforms at the subvarsity level (when they are wearing hand-me-downs that no longer conform to the FED rules). I can look the other way here, too.

With this I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Rich

That's why you [hopefully] have good scorers. In CT, we never had a quarter rule (at least, one of which I was aware) but we still tracked who went into the game each quarter - even if only for a microsecond. Never really gave much thought as to why that was in the book until this discussion came up.

Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich, Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich, Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich, Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich,Rich, sorry. Ok, I think I've got the name now.
Mark,
Last year I realized that the scorers really don't track who is playing very well. The system should be changed. One of my fellow officials had a fight in one of his games. After things settled down, he went to the scorer's table in an attempt to find out who were the five players from each team that were in the game when the incident occured.
The scorer was unable to help. They only mark who has played, and don't keep track of when. This made the situation very difficult to sort out because people came off of both benches.

Two problems on this one - (a) the scorers are not required to keep track of who is in the game (b) the scorebook really has no place to mark who is in the game at what time.

Of course, the best scorers use a separate sheet of paper to keep track of substitutes and the like - it tends to be most helpful in situations where you have subs, no time off the clock, and one of the players who left the game then wants to sub back in.