Substitution help ASAP

[habram]

I do agree with all that stated if the caoch says that a player is injured or not available then we must continue the game without questions

[KCRC]

So, it sounds like the consensus is the coach determines eligibility. From a practical standpoint, I think that is a good idea. The only problem then is that the rule requiring 5 players really has no teeth.


In the OP, the school had a rule that any T requires the offender to sit for the rest of the game. Well, what if the coach has a rule: any player who shoots before the ball has been passed 4 times is suspended for the rest of the game. You ask for a fifth player, coach says he has no other eligible players. You say OK. If so, then the rule really isn't a rule IMO.

[bob jenkins]

In any situation like that (esp. if it's a "School rule" as opposed to a "league rule"), that information is going in a game report. That should be done whether you fall on the "force the team to play with five" or "allow the team to play with four" side of the debate. SOmeone (AD, state, etc.) will get it corrected for future games.

[rockyroad]

Again - these are not issues of "eligibilty". Those rules are determined by the State Associations (number of practices, grades, being at school the day of a game, etc., etc.). What we are talking about in this thread is "availability" of players...and if a Coach says that #32 is not available - then he ain't available. We have no rules backing to force a Coach to play someone after they tell us the player is unavailable.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Again - these are not issues of "eligibilty". Those rules are determined by the State Associations (number of practices, grades, being at school the day of a game, etc., etc.). What we are talking about in this thread is "availability" of players...and if a Coach says that #32 is not available - then he ain't available. We have no rules backing to force a Coach to play someone after they tell us the player is unavailable.

+1

I used the word "eligible" in my posts..."available" is what I should have said.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

+1

I used the word "eligible" in my posts..."available" is what I should have said.

They really are two different things...and we shouldn't worry about either one. The conversation is short and sweet:

"Coach, we need a sub."

"I don't have anyone available."

"OK. We go with 4."

And that's really all there is to it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Coach says that #32 is not available - then he ain't available.

Wow. Some common sense. How refreshing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow. Some common sense. How refreshing.

Yeah, cause he's the first in the thread....

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, cause he's the first in the thread....

Respect don't come easy in these parts and it surely ain't common.

I heard you early on.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, cause he's the first in the thread....

Your posts are banned in Connecticut.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, cause he's the first in the thread....

Yeah, but I was smiling when I typed it...