Cannot Sub for Guy who Dunks in Pregame?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I would say one of the marked starting 5 would have to shoot the first one, and anyone would be able to shoot the second one.

Read 3-2-2a "unless ... to attempt a technical-foul free throw"

edit: sorry, I see it was already covered.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Smitty

You can get all caught up in the rules if you like. Carry on...

I like.
You make this sound bad.
I am well aware of the measures of discretion available in this and many other situations that arise. But before varying from a rule, is it not good to know what the rule actually is for which a variance is granted? Otherwise we'd all just go with our "feelings." It's always been frustrating to me to observe officials around here make game decisions based on their perceived "spirit of the rules" when they have no clue what the rules involved even are in those situations.

(BTW, the more veteran partner in the original situation last night did, in fact, allow the coach to sub for the rim-grabber. The newer official involved is simply wondering what the rule is regarding the sitch.)

Now, on with my learning so I can have a basis for granting discretion when it's wise!

[Raymond]

If Team B subs in a free throw shooter, bring in a sub from Team A at the same time.

If Team B doesn't sub then bring in Team A sub after 1st or 2nd free throw.

Does it need to be any more complicated than that?

And where is 3-3-2a, it's not in the online rules book?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

That was my first thought. Dunker would have to wait until the first free throw. If the opposing coach brings a guy in off the bench to shoot the free throws, I would probably let the dunker get subbed as well.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If Team B subs in a free throw shooter, bring in a sub from Team A at the same time.

If Team B doesn't sub then bring in Team A sub after 1st or 2nd free throw.

Does it need to be any more complicated than that?

That is what I was saying.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Maybe this will be unpopular, but I think sometimes people get too caught up in the exact wording of the rules to understand the spirit of the rules. If the coach wants to sit down a starter, who is likely a better player than the kid who will be subbed in, because this kid was an a$$hat and hung on the rim pregame, to teach the kid a lesson, I'm allowing it. Then. Not after the first free throw. Not to mention this kid bought his coach a seatbelt for the game. Let him sit right next to the coach. You can get all caught up in the rules if you like. Carry on...

Funny, I had this exact thing happen in a game and the coach had no problem bringing in a sub after the first free throw.

I don't see why I need to get all caught up in "teaching the kid a lesson".

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Funny, I had this exact thing happen in a game and the coach had no problem bringing in a sub after the first free throw.

I don't see why I need to get all caught up in "teaching the kid a lesson".

Good for you. I said it might be unpopular. Don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes. I really don't think what I said is that ridiculous in this scenario. If you prefer to show the coach who's boss and intervene in the lesson, feel free, under the rules.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I know it's legal, Billy.

My point is you can sub before the first throw.

But this is only legal for shooting team correct?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

But this is only legal for shooting team correct?

Technically, yes. But if the coach wants the player out, why make a big deal of it. As soon as the first T is taken, he can take him out anyway and letting him do it before the first T isn't going to cause a problem and will take less time than telling him he has to wait and then doing it. No need to ruffle the feathers of the coach for such an insignificant issue.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Good for you. I said it might be unpopular. Don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes. I really don't think what I said is that ridiculous in this scenario. If you prefer to show the coach who's boss and intervene in the lesson, feel free, under the rules.

You must have some sort of complex if you're scared to enforce the rules without thinking there will be some sort of drama involved.

Coach: I want to pull my knucklehead out the starting line-up for that stupid stunt.

Me: No problem coach, you can do so as soon as we shoot the first free throw.

Coach: Thanks.

Maybe you just lack the requisite communications skills to pull off such a daunting task.

(do I need to include some sort of smiley face with this post so I don't seem bossy?)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Technically, yes. But if the coach wants the player out, why make a big deal of it. As soon as the first T is taken, he can take him out anyway and letting him do it before the first T isn't going to cause a problem and will take less time than telling him he has to wait and then doing it. No need to ruffle the feathers of the coach for such an insignificant issue.

Why is everyone assuming the coach will have a problem with waiting for the proper time to substitute? Is everyone out there dealing with nothing but d!ckhead coaches?

Who's to say subbing the kid too early won't ruffle the feathers of the opposing coach who will want to know why the starting line-up is being changed without penalty?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And where is 3-3-2a, it's not in the online rules book?

That's 3-2-2a

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why is everyone assuming the coach will have a problem with waiting for the proper time to substitute? Is everyone out there dealing with nothing but d!ckhead coaches?

Who's to say subbing the kid too early won't ruffle the feathers of the opposing coach who will want to know why the starting line-up is being changed without penalty?

What harm is there? The proper time is still before any playing action, so there is zero advantage here. If the coach is going to pitch a fit over whether the sub happens before or after the first free throw, he's going to end up with a seat belt at some point.

I get that the rule says we should wait for the first free throw, but I can't see picking this nit.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You must have some sort of complex if you're scared to enforce the rules without thinking there will be some sort of drama involved.

Coach: I want to pull my knucklehead out the starting line-up for that stupid stunt.

Me: No problem coach, you can do so as soon as we shoot the first free throw.

Coach: Thanks.

Maybe you just lack the requisite communications skills to pull off such a daunting task.

(do I need to include some sort of smiley face with this post so I don't seem bossy?)

So clever you are. I am certain this conversation would go exactly as you typed it. Bravo. You win. Feel better?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

What harm is there? The proper time is still before any playing action, so there is zero advantage here. If the coach is going to pitch a fit over whether the sub happens before or after the first free throw, he's going to end up with a seat belt at some point.

I get that the rule says we should wait for the first free throw, but I can't see picking this nit.

So you are willing to bend a rule as "to not ruffle the feathers of a coach" but then you are criticiaing the coach whose "feathers are ruffled" b/c we are not properly adjudicating the rules. Something about that seems backwards to me.

What's the harm in saying "Coach, by rule you cannot bring out a starter until the ball is live, which will occur when the first free throw is shot". Why is everyone assuming that this statement will "ruffle the feathers" of the HC.

I've had this situation once and the coach had absolutely ZERO heartache with waiting for the free throws. As I stated above, it seems like everybody but me is dealing with off-kiltered coaches.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Smitty

So clever you are. I am certain this conversation would go exactly as you typed it. Bravo. You win. Feel better?

That's how the conversation did go. If you would have read instead of looking for a fight you would have seen that I said I've had this situation exactly once.