You make the call
 

This happened in a sub district game the other night and I heard this second hand and have not found it yet in the rule book. Here goes :

A team starts the game with 7 players. One fouls out leaving them with 6. As the game goes along, one of the players on this team gets into it with the coach and the coach tells him to go to the locker room, he's done for the night. During the 4th quarter, another player fouls out leaving this team with only 4 players on the floor. They would still have 5 except the coach told the disruptive player on his team to hit the high road to the locker room. Here's the question, does the coach have to put that player back in or can he legally play with 4? That player wasn't actually disqualifed from the game, only told to leave by his coach. The kicker is, this team actually ended up holding on for the win to advance to the next round.

Play with 4

Yep. Coach says he's ineligible, I'm not arguing.

Side note, I hope the coach didn't send the kid alone.

Dude this ones easy. I've watched Hoosiers over 700 times. His team was on the floor.

Didn't we go round and round about this not too long ago?

Anyway, I was on the other side a while back, but I was convinced otherwise. The coach decides who's eligible. Easy enough.

(The only place I can see this being a problem is when a coach has a poor FT shooter on the bench who is the only sub and a player gets injured while being fouled and the coach uses the Hoosiers line. But that's an unlikely enough scenario where I'm not really concerned about it.)

Best sports movie ever: Hoosiers or Rudy?

Neither. Correct answer: Caddy Shack

Those 2 movies are neck and neck for me but being a basketball guy, gotta go with Hoosiers. Back to the issue, only thing I could say is if that player is a terrible free throw shooter and the coach has the gall to think he can win without him and that's the reason he sent him off, then that's another story. In this case though, the kid was just being a knucklehead. Not sure if someone went with him to the lockerroom or not?

One more question that might come up. Say the coach leaves him on the bench where he can keep an eye on him and player #6 just fouled out. You have four on the court plus the knucklehead on the bench. What as an official are you going to do when the coach says he's not going to put him in, continue with four? I have a feeling that's what went these officials minds going into the game on Tuesday night. Have not heard how things went yet.

I'd rather watch a marathon of the "Bachelor" than watch Rudy once. Just one guys opinion.

I never found Rudy a good movie, let alone a "best" of anything.

Make that two. I cannot stand that movie. I have to say I don't have a real high opinion of the man in real life either.

Yes, I'd play with 4.

The referees let this team start with 7 players? Around here 5 players get to play at a time :D

Yes he can legally play with 4. As Snags said, the player should not have gone to the locker room alone, he needed to be accompanied by an adult.

Which is why I'd respond the same whether the player in question is on the bench or in the locker room.

If we DQ or eject a player & they go to the lockrroom, they must be accompanied by an adult. Is that the same as if coach says its a wrap??
Coach did that not us.

My point is, if the coach says he's not eligible, I'm good with that. I'm not forcing him to send the kid off the bench.

Had a local kid here quit the team during a game once. Left his uniform in the locker room at halftime and went home. No rule against that.

Coach Norman Dale or Rudy Ruettiger? C'mon man.

Why can't they go alone and where is the rule?

Am I Allowed To Use My Flux Capacitor ???
 

Didn't the rule once stipulate that the player was ejected to the locker room? Wait? Am I allowed to take a nostalgic look back at old rules? All I've got are my memories. Please don't take them away from me.

I believe this generally a state issue; but I'm not doing or saying anything that would encourage a coach to send his player to the locker room by himself.

10.5(b)

Which applies to flagrant DQs, but not coaching dismissals.

Just answering a question, I agree there is a difference between a player being DQ'd/ejected & the coach saying "hit the showers kid, youre done." The former is by rule & the latter is the coaches decision.

And if the player quits as jar said, then they are no longer a team member.

The player should be considered suspended from the team until we hear otherwise.

Playing with 4 is acceptable here.

No rule in the book. State rule. I have been told for three years now that players cannot go to the locker room without adult supervision. I also heard it was because a player hanged himself after being ejected...I don't know if this is true or not.

Of course, this isn't an ejection, but I would get game management involved and have an adult accompany the player. That ain't happening on my watch.

You Are Not Outta Here ...
 

If a coach, assistant coach, athletic director, site director, trainer, team chaplain, principal, police officer, or school superintendent wants to send a player, unescorted, with no adult supervision, to the "showers", then, in my opinion, it's none of my business and I'm not saying a word.

However, I will never, under ordinary circumstances, "eject" a player to the "showers". If a player on the bench continues to create problems, and I'm forced to rule that a player must leave the bench, then I'm telling the coach that the player must be accompanied by an adult.

Well said, I agree. I have not received any other guidance from our state on this matter.

What's the rationale? Wouldn't it apply equally, though it might not be equally enforceable?

My guess, because the situation where we tell a coach that the player must leave is by our choice.

As Billy noted, if the coach makes that choice, it's not my responsibility. I might, depending on how things are going and the rapport I have with the coach, suggest he send an adult to the LR.

No the rationale for requiring the player to remain on the bench is that nobody wants an angry teen running around a locker room alone. And that applies equally no matter who puts the kid there.

That said, I agree with what you've said, but it concerns enforceability, not the rationale.