Substitution help ASAP

[Adam]

I see your point, but eligibility is outside of my purview as an official. I'm not going to question it. Same as if the coach tells me the player has reached his participation limit. I'm not going to try to force the coach to play a kid he says is ineligible just because he's sitting on the bench in uniform.

[Eastshire]

If I found myself in this situation, I'm going to accept the coach's explanation and let the team play with four on the floor and then file a full report with the state after the game and let them sort it out.

It's not my job as a game official to enforce the eligibility rules. I enforce the game rules. The game rules require 5 on the floor if there are 5 eligible players but we only have 4 and determining otherwise is beyond the scope of my responsibility.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If I found myself in this situation, I'm going to accept the coach's explanation and let the team play with four on the floor and then file a full report with the state after the game and let them sort it out.

It's not my job as a game official to enforce the eligibility rules. I enforce the game rules. The game rules require 5 on the floor if there are 5 eligible players but we only have 4 and determining otherwise is beyond the scope of my responsibility.

There it is.

Case 3.1.1 says a team must play with five, as long as it has five players available. It's the head coach that says who's available; we can only say who's ineligible.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, in most cases I've seen, players suspended from a team are not allowed (by the school and/or league) to sit on the team bench.

True, but if they become disqualified that game, they can't leave without adult supervision, anyway.

[Ignats75]

From what I can see, his eligibility is based upon the fact he is in uniform and on the bench and uninjured. Unless the local rules allow the re-enactment of "Hoosiers", sorry coach, your team isn't all on the floor yet.

Draconian rules by schools is a pet peeve of mine. Now, a suspension for the act this player committed may be merited. I won't question that. But ANY TF? Really? When did our school administrators make pre frontal lobotomies a pre-requisite for a school administative position?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

From what I can see, his eligibility is based upon the fact he is in uniform and on the bench and uninjured. Unless the local rules allow the re-enactment of "Hoosiers", sorry coach, your team isn't all on the floor yet.

So, in order to maintain a school suspension (which is what this is), you're going to insist a player be removed from the bench?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, in order to maintain a school suspension (which is what this is), you're going to insist a player be removed from the bench?

Well, in most cases I've seen, players suspended from a team are not allowed (by the school and/or league) to sit on the team bench.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, in most cases I've seen, players suspended from a team are not allowed (by the school and/or league) to sit on the team bench.

Sure, if they're suspended prior to the game. If it happens during the game, and there's no adult to take "custody" (for lack of a better word) of the player, the coach would be negligent to send the player away.

Likewise with a player who has played his maximum quarters for a given time frame.

Me: "Coach, you have to have five."
Coach: "He's not eligible because he's played his maximum number for the day."
Me: "Ok."

[BillyMac]

OK, let's twist this up a bit. Officials, who are "rule book smart", but lack some common sense, decide that the "suspended" player has to play because of the "have to play with five rule". Coach states that the kid is "ineligible", and "not available". Officials insist that the kid plays, or the team will forfeit the game, so the kid comes off the bench and plays. While playing, he sustains a life threatening injury.

We live in a world where anybody can sue anyone for any reason. I'm 100% sure that the coach will be sued but I'm almost as sure that the officials will also be sued. Maybe they won't be found responsible for the injury, but they will have to hire a lawyer, and billable hours don't come cheap. Ask my divorce attorney if you don't believe me.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

OK, let's twist this up a bit. Officials, who are "rule book smart", but lack some common sense, decide that the "suspended" player has to play because of the "have to play with five rule". Coach states that the kid is "ineligible", and "not available". Officials insist that the kid plays, or the team will forfeit the game, so the kid comes off the bench and plays. While playing, he sustains a life threatening injury.

We live in a world where anybody can sue anyone for any reason. I'm 100% sure that the coach will be sued but I'm almost as sure that the officials will also be sued. Maybe they won't be found responsible for the injury, but they will have to hire a lawyer, and billable hours don't come cheap. Ask my divorce attorney if you don't believe me.

This post ties for the dumbest thing posted on the Internet. The kid was not injured. I may as well quit driving for fear that someone may sue me someday.

I get that the coach may decide his kid isn't going to play. But this isn't an eligibility rule as those are set by the state (at least here). This is a coach deciding he doesn't want to put an eligible sub back into the game because of a team rule. Nothing more.

Here's a question for you. Suppose that the fifth player got injured in the act of shooting and the "suspended" kid is a 12% free throw shooter. So the coach gets to decide if the kid can play and then gets to pick the shooter from the four on the floor?