Substitution help ASAP

[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.

[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.

[moref]

Well I guess we are split on this.Is there really a wrong way to do it.If your evaluator was there and state rules guy was there what would you really do?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by moref

Well I guess we are split on this.Is there really a wrong way to do it.If your evaluator was there and state rules guy was there what would you really do?

I'm sure there is a wrong (and right) way. Until the FED comes out with guidance, the wrong (and right) way will likely vary by state. Until the state comes out with guidance, the wrong (and right) way will likely vary by local association. etc.

Given that no guidance has been given, I would NOT force the kid to play. I would complete a game report on the incident to try to get state guidance for any future occurrence.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by moref

Well I guess we are split on this.Is there really a wrong way to do it.If your evaluator was there and state rules guy was there what would you really do?

I would do what I said I would do, and provide my reasoning if asked.