Substitution help ASAP

[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?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This post ties for the dumbest thing posted on the Internet.

You need to get out on the Internet more.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

You need to get out on the Internet more.

It was an homage to Tee over on the baseball board, mainly.

[Adam]

Schools are free to set their own eligibility rules to make them more strict than the states. If the school tells me through their representative (the coach) that a player is ineligible, I'll take him at his word. If he's going to be deceitful, he's more likely to claim an injury, but it's getting reported afterwards anyway.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

So? It's still not your responsibility to rule on eligibility. If something smells fishy to you, file a game report. If the state doesn't like it, they'll find a suitable punishment.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

So? It's still not your responsibility to rule on eligibility. If something smells fishy to you, file a game report. If the state doesn't like it, they'll find a suitable punishment.

I've been leaning this way for the last day or so, just trying to find reasons why it's not a great idea.

I respect coaches that have rules -- it always warms my heart to see a coach pull a kid who gets himself whacked. But even I, the cynical official, finds it ridiculous that a school would be willing to play with four players over it.

So, yes, I would allow it and I would be filing a report with the state office and would include anything that the coach told me in the report.

Speaking of which -- I had to have a student fan removed last night from a game, so I need to file a report.