Substitution help ASAP
 

Here is the situation.Team A has 8 players total.Later on in the game I had to whack a kid for pushing a team B player during a dead ball.School has a policy that if a player gets a T he must sit out the remainder of the game.Later a player gets injured so another player is out leaving them wit 6 players.Now 2 players foul out.I need a sub.Coach says he don't have one because one kid is injured and the other kid got a T.I forced him to bring in the kid that I whacked because he was an eligible sub.Coach not happy about it,but I am worried that if I don't make him sub the kid in that I would be in violation of a rule.Help me out here because I got a school upset with me about this.I think if he has a sub he must put him in.Am I wrong?Case book Rule 3 1.1 is what I found.I had a partner let a team finish with 4 one time when the had another player on the bench to sub,and he got in trouble and no playoff game because of this.

If a player is suspended from the team for violating rules, I don't see why anyone would have a problem. Just don't let him reverse the suspension later in the same game.

You were right, they must play with five if five eligible players are available. A "school" rule doesn't trump this (no different than a "five quarter in night situation").

Now having said that, the coach could of simply said he was injured and unavailable.

If the coach says they're unavailable, they're unavailable. Play with 4. It doesn't matter it is an injury or disciplinary. We don't ask why nor do we need to know. The coach might just decide to send the kid to the locker room to avoid having to play them and we don't want to put them in that bind (we can not send the player to the locker room but that doesn't stop the coach from doing so).

For all you know, a bench player, in any other game that appears to be available, could be serving a state imposed suspension. Do you think that player should be forced to play? No.

What Camron said. You wouldn't bring the player back if he was DQ'd becasue of a flagrant T -- and the league rules are that any T is to be treated as flagrant.

Apparently someone in charge thinks so.

I've never seen a player in my roman province that was suspended, dressed and in the book.

This player has been suspended by his school. They can't send him off without an adult, so they leave him on the bench. The local rule said he was ineligible to play, you should abide by that.

Then that is something that should be formally communicated to the association/assignor. The officials should know coming into the game that this is the expected/accepted practice. Based on the OP it seems an official got in trouble for adhering to the school policy.

We don't know the situation his partner was in. You're right, though, the school should inform the assigner of their policy and their insistence that they get officials willing to comply. If a coach tells me his player isn't eligible, I'm not asking why.

Sitch:
B has 7 players, but two foul out.
After the 2nd player fouls out, the coach tells you he only has four eligible players because B15 has reached his maximum quarters for the day.
Are you telling me you're going to tell the coach he has to break the state participation rules? Based on what?

The rule says they have to play with 5 if they have 5 eligible players. If the coach tells me he isn't eligible, he isn't eligible.

Bob summed it up -- all technical fouls are flagrant here.

I'm going to assume that this was something lower than high school ball. If I'm working something at that level, I usually ask in pre-game if there are any special rules that we should know (no pressing rules, etc.), so we're not caught by surprise. As BNR suggested, let the assigner know about this rule, so others are made aware.

In addition, clarify whether ALL technical fouls are flagrant. I can't imagine tossing a kid for reaching through the plane and touching the ball (and a few other non-unsportsmanlike infractions).

A school policy doesn't trump the rules. Unless the league or conference or state association has such a rule and it's well communicated, I'm expecting that player to enter the game. This ain't Hoosiers.

1. Turns out it's a school policy rather than a league rule; and it's a policy I applaud.

2. I'm not treating them like flagrants, the coach gets to make that choice according to school policy. He may well decide not to enact it if the T is for breaking the plane and hitting the ball. That's why I'd rather not know before the fact, so I don't alter the way I call a game.

3. The player is, essentially, suspended even if he's in uniform. I'm not forcing the coach to either play the kid or lie (he's injured). If I need to answer to an assigner for that, so be it.

If the school policy says he's ineligible, who am I to question that?

The school has a policy that states the kid is ineligible...(after 1 Technical)

how is this "trumping the rules"?

Um, the referee? What if it was school policy to play with 6 players or with players wearing long tights under shorts?

The player was not ejected from the game. He is an eligible substitute, by rule. He must come into the game by rule unless he's injured.

I get both sides of this, but it's not as cut and dried as some of you are making it to be.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

It absolutely is cut and dried...if the Coach says a player or players are not available to play, you have no authority to set that aside and force the Coach to put one or more of them into the game.

It really is that simple...

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."

Ambulance Chasers ...
 

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?

You need to get out on the Internet more.;)

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

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.

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.

Substitution help
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Short And Sweet ...
 

Wow. Some common sense. How refreshing.

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

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

I heard you early on.

Your posts are banned in Connecticut.

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.

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

Maybe, but I wasn't first, and I know he listens to bob.

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