Cannot Sub for Guy who Dunks in Pregame?
 

MS game last night (yes, really!): A1, starter in the book, grabs and pulls down the rim right toward the end of pregame warmups. Technical foul rightfully issued by observing official. Coach, upset with A1 and desiring to deprive him of his starter status, wants to sub for him before game starts. Official rules that, except for illness, injury, etc. (3-2-2a), such a substitute is not allowed without incurring a team T for changing the scorebook.

I desire to confirm with you that this is correct.

You can desire all you want, but you won't get that confirmation.

Why wouldn't the sub come in between or after the free throws?

Did A HC lobby for "grabbing to prevent injury"?:)

I'm letting coach bench the kid.

Game starts with the free throws. Legally he can sub. I'd let him sub before the free throws are even shot.

Once the T is reported, the game has started. Substitutions are allowed now....the starters have started.

Could it be that, since the game will begin with two technical free throws, a sub can enter to replace this young rim-grabber after the first free throw is shot? Could it be I neglected to consult 6-2-1 regarding the starting of a game? Could it be that I was incorrect in my original inquiry? Could it? Could it? Could it?

I consider myself not yet confirmed.

No need to wait for the first free throw. That rule only applies to personal fouls.

Can't find where it says that. Any help?
I'm seeing what 6-2-1 says, and how it refers me to 6-1-2, and get all that. But I'm still searching for what you state above and what justification there could be for allowing this substitution before the ball becomes live.

Perhaps this is minutia, does that mean report the T immediately, and the game has started, or wait until the game is supposed to start to report the T?

3-3-1 I believe.

If the coach wants to reinforce the lesson by removing the kid from the starting lineup I'm for it. And if it has to be medical I'm pretty sure the kid hurt his hand on the rim.

6-2-1. The game and each extra period begins when the ball becomes live as specified in 6-1-2 for a jump ball, throw-in or free throw. He would be able to sub after the first free throw.

What if the other coach wants to bring in A44 (read B44 for OP) to shoot both technical foul free throws?

Citation Please ...
 

Legal. I'll give a citation later. I'm at work with no books.

I know it's legal, Billy.

My point is you can sub before the first throw.

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.

I disagree.

What other coach? Team b doesn't get to say who shoots them if they are the offending team. If team A is awarded the free throws their coach can have any player in the book shoot said free throws.

An exception is granted for that in 3-2-2a: "...unless...to attempt a technical-foul free throw."
(assuming that "other coach" is the not the one ticked off at his 6'10" MS player)

I switched them. Don't get caught up in that...it's been corrected in my first post. Sorry for the confusion.

My point was you can sub before the first free throw.

Why?

Bingo!

See Freddy's reference.

Ahh. I see it now. Thanks.

Based on that I would let the coach sub the kid out that dunked.

But he's not the one allowed to be subbed in in this 3-2-2a exception.

I'm still leaning toward not allowing this miscreant out until after the ball has become live to start the game by being put at the disposal of the thrower shooting first of two technical foul free throws (accd. to 6-2-1 and, by extension, 6-1-2). Unless the coach wants to invest a team technical for changing a designated starter.....

Still studying it.

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.

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...

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

edit: sorry, I see it was already covered.

Sure, However
 

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. :confused:

(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! :)

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?

That is what I was saying.

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". :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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?)

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? :confused:

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?

Errata
 

That's 3-2-2a

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

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.

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.

Not that I should even need to say this, but the OP is in a freaking middle school game. I am not worried in this case what the opposing coach says. In a varsity game, I will likely get the opposing coach's ok before I let the angry coach change his starting lineup. Yes he is angry because his kid just did a very stupid thing and he has no coaching box the entire game. If you think he's not going to be angry (at his player and the situation) you're dreaming.

Who said anything about pitching a fit. And why do you assume a coach who asks a legitimate question about a rule that is not being enforced properly will eventually get T'd up.

In my experiences, I've found that coaches who have extensive rules knowledge are the least headache.

Oh then I stand corrected. You had this scenario exactly once and that's how the conversation went, so therefore that's how it would go everywhere. I didn't realize I was in the presence of such greatness. My apologies. ;)

Fence Straddling ???
 

If you're on the fence on this one, then just go by the rule. Very little can go wrong when you follow the rules, especially when you have to describe the situation to your assignment commissioner on the phone a few hours later. If you're not on the fence, then just do what you have to do.

Because rolling your eyes is a compliment where you come from?

I missed the part of the conversation where it said "what is the rule for MS games". We already know lower level games get adjudicated more leniently than HS Varsity and above. I thought the discussion was about what is the rule and the best way to adjuicate it.

And coaches get mad for many things (I feel like I'm channeling my inner JRut now). So when a coach is down by 20 points in the 3rd quarter and a dumba$$ AC gets whacked for a T, are you going to worry about how angry the coach is?

"Coach, you're right, by rule he should wait til after the first free throw, but the coach is taking care of a problem for us. I'm not forcing him to wait an irrelevant ten seconds."
If that's going to be a problem, he's not a reasonable coach.

Conversely, "Coach, you can sub right after the first free throw. Meanwhile, feel free to keep him by your bench and chew on him until we beckon the sub in."

I honestly don't see either being a problem.

No, but he's free to sub his AC out if he likes. :)

In the middle school games around here I'm lucky they have lineups in the books at game time. So yes I run things differently in middle school games. I said very specifically that what I would do is not going with the rule as written. But as far as game management, I am going to handle that scenario the way I wrote it. I'll admit it isn't by the letter of the rule. Your other scenario is irrelevant, so I won't even speak to it. You missed my entire point, and that's ok. I'm perfectly fine with anyone who does things by the book.

No, you're just in the presense of someone who isn't afraid of coaches and doesn't worry about how angry they are at their players.

Personally, I'm going to start by doing it right. If I get some kind of backlash from the coach only THEN will I consider bending the rules. And when I bend the rule I'll will let the opposing coach know I'm doing so. I'm not going to try to sneak it by him and see if he doesn't notice. And I'll also call my supervisor after the game and let him know what I did.

And someone who leaps to conclusions. You assume I am afraid of coaches because of what I wrote. That tells me enough about you.

I am going to let a coach solve a problem in a very productive way that really puts himself at a disadvantage because he's replacing a starting player with a player who would not have started. That puts the other coach at a distinct advantage to start the game. So by allowing that coach to handle that situation in the way he wants and also teach the moron kid a lesson, without intervening in that beautiful process, how exactly am I hurting this wonderful game?

My rolling my eyes was in reference to "teaching the kid a lesson". That lesson is being taught whether it comes before or after the free throw so it is irrelavent to which way an official decides to handle the situation.

Folks are acting as if waiting for the first free throw prevents the coach from dealing with the kid. It doesn't prevent the coach from sitting the kid down for the rest of the warm-ups.

I've yet to read from anyone who has had a case where the coach got upset about having to wait. I could make the same argument Snakewells made. Any coach who pitches a fit about that isn't going to last very long once the game starts.

Honestly, I think the overwhelming majority of coaches would react in the same manner that BNR is talking about. And if the opposing coach decides to make an issue of this, you have no leg to stand on at all.

This is high school we're talking about. And more importantly, in this scenario, middle school. Far too often I see coaches doing the opposite - allowing kids to behave badly and keeping them in the game because winning is far more important than teaching. In this case, I applaud the coach for teaching that lesson. We can agree to disagree.

What problem needs to be solved? We're not talking about a kid who is committing unsporting acts towards the officials and ruining the game. The kid will be sitting on the bench when the clocks starts. My way doesn't prevent that.

And I never said your way harmed anybody. I just said I'm more likely to get flak from the opposing coach about changing starters than I am going to get from the offending coach for making a sub wait for the first free throw.

So who is jumping to conclusions?

Again, where does my way prevent the coach from dealing with the kid?

If the coach is pissed at his kid and wants him on the bench immediately, I am inclined to let him. That's my perspective on it. I don't believe I ever said your way was wrong. I am just defending my way.

Years and years ago I was officiating a boys' H.S. game. A1 dunked the ball during the 30 minute pre-game period. B-HC wanted to have B6 replace B1 to shoot the TF free throws. Over the streneous objections of A-HC I let B6 replace B1. I told A-HC that while the game, by rule, begins with the TF free throws, the rule that allows any player(s) in the game or any legal substitute(s) to shoot the free throws prevails because for all intents and purposes the game actually started when A1 dunked a dead ball during the pre-game warmups.

Later that season during a telephone conversation with Dick Schindler about an altogether different situation, I mentioned the previous play and A-HC's objection to how I handled the situation and Dick used the exact same words that I used to with A-HC in stating that I had handled the situation correctly. The conversation took place over 20 years ago. Somethings never change.

Happy Turkey Day!! Go Buckeyes!! Beat that team from that state up north!!

MTD, Sr.

With Apologies To Emily Litella ...
 

Just exactly where are they going? I thought that they were under some type of post season restriction? Wait? That's the UCONN mens basketball program. Sorry. Wait? I'm now being told that both the Ohio State football program, and the UCONN mens basketball program, are under post season restrictions. Our kids never went to class. What's your excuse?

Instead of forgetting about class, they forgot about paying for tattoos.

How about this? The pre-game time has expired. A-HC has his team in front of his bench or possibly sitting on the bench, coaching his team. A6 goes reports to the table and returns to his bench just like he would do during a timeout.

B1 shoots the two FTs.

A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6 enter the floor for B's throw-in.

As far as Smitty is concerned, A6 entered the game before the first FT.

As far as BNR is concerned, A6 entered after the game after the first FT.

BktBallRef calls the assignor the next day, scratches Smitty and BNR because they can't get along and he lives happily ever after. :D

And no, I couldn't care less if Team A is sitting on the bench while B1 shoots.

And the UNC Football Tar Heels! :D

Quiz Format for Association Discussion Tool
 

For any who'd like to use the question for association discussion, here's the issue and the results of most our discussion here in an unrefined quiz format that could take up a couple of hours of fruitful (?) meeting time, if desired....
THIS IS A TOOL TO TAILOR AS DESIRED FOR YOUR OWN USE AND CIRCUMSTANCES

A1, a designated starter, grabs the rim with 5 minutes on showing on the pregame clock. One properly observant member of your crew sees it and the merited technical foul is issued. Coach A, upset with A1, wants to bench him to deprive him of being a starter for this game. He tells you he would like to replace A6 as a designated starter instead of A1.
Which of the following responses are true?
A. He may replace A1 with A6 as a designated starter at that time, but a team technical will be assessed for changing the scorebook after the 10 minute mark.
B. He can't bench A1 before the jump ball to begin the game. As a designated starter, he must start the game.
C. He may bring A6 in as a sub for A1 after the ball is at the disposal of the B player who will be shooting the technical free throws to begin the game.
D. It doesn't really matter--just do what seems best for the sake of the spirit of the rules.
E. A1 deserves to be punished for causing the coach to lose his coaching box. He may bench A1 and designate any other non-starter in the book to be a starter with no penalty.
F. A6 may replace A1 as a designated starter only after the second technical foul shot before the team B throw in at the division line.
G. A1 may not play in this game.
H. A6 can replace A1 as a designated starter before the pre-game clock runs out, but it will be at the expense of a team technical foul for team A.
I. Since the game does not start until the inbounds pass is made by team B from the division line, the coach may send the desired sub to report to substitute for A1 at that time.
J. Before the game clock even starts after the beginning of the game, team B could be ahead by a score of 2-0.
K. A1, designated starter, must be on the floor when the game begins.
L. A1, designated starter, cannot be on the floor when the game begins.
M. He cannot sub anyone for A1 until after the clock has been properly started.

Rule book, C. However, if the coach pushes back with any sound logic (most coaches would accept that requirement), I'll let the sub in sooner.

Some of these don't make sense as an answer to this question.

Granted. There are a bunch of outright false selections added for the sake of discussion.

A, C, H, J.

A and H are basically the same.

The correct answer is none of the above. The correct answer is that A-HC can substitute A6 in for A1 before the TF free throws are shot for the same reason that B6 can be substituted into the game for B1 to shoot the TF free throws: That the game started when A1 commited a TF by dunking a dead ball. Read my previous post in this thread.

MTD, Sr.

I respectfully disagree. 8.3. The ball becomes live to start the game when placed at free throwers disposal. (straight from the NFHS app). It seems to me that it is pretty clear that "by the book", a legal substitution would have to wait until after the first free throw, with the exception of team A player to shoot the technical.

Mark, the exception that allows A6 to enter and shoot is just that, an exception that applies only to team A for a shooter. Since the first opportunity to sub is after the first free throw, that's when the sub may enter, by rule.

Mark, with all due respect, a convo you had with someone on the phone 20 years ago means absolutely nothing. We have to go by the rules, case plays and interps before us. None of them support what you suggest. In fact, they say just the opposite. Sorry.

Even if the conversation was yesterday, with the entire NFHS rules committee, it wouldn't mean what he says it means.

No, but the 20 y/o convo is what he's banking on.