Intentional foul and sub?

Originally Posted by Adam

Second, how many times do you actually see this?

Not often, but it happened to me.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

8-2: The free throw(s) awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the
offended player. If such player must withdraw because of an injury or
disqualification, his/her substitute shall attempt the throw(s) unless no substitute
is available, in which case any teammate may attempt the throw(s) as selected by
the team captain or head coach.

Confucius says, "Must sit a tick, don’t have to play a tick".

When the rule says the injured player "must withdraw" does this mean for the entire game, or just for that period until he/she can reenter the game?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Well, first, the OP stated it was an intentional foul. I believe all rule sets are the same in that case (with the possible exception of FIBA). Second, how many times do you actually see this? I might have a sub shoot FTs once every season or two. Is it possible to cheat the system? Yeah, but that potential is trumped by the safety benefits of doing it the way it's done now. Players are less likely to try to play through an injury.

Well not really because NCAA and NBA does not have an intentional foul rule anymore. Now NCAA has a Flagrant 1 rule which is similar to an intentional foul. But that is why this can be confusing, because people try to suggest you are not apply the rule properly if you are not applying rules they see on TV more often.

And college coaches and I am sure NBA coaches certainly must have tried to cheat the system and I can assume that is why their rules are different then the NF on this issue.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not often, but it happened to me.

What? A player too injured to shoot? Or a player who cheats the rule? I've never had a player cheat the rule, and I can probably use my fingers to count the number of times I've actually had a player too injured to shoot his/her free throws.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

When the rule says the injured player "must withdraw" does this mean for the entire game, or just for that period until he/she can reenter the game?

What does the rule say about how long a player must sit out if he's forced to be subbed out due to injury?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well not really because NCAA and NBA does not have an intentional foul rule anymore. Now NCAA has a Flagrant 1 rule which is similar to an intentional foul. But that is why this can be confusing, because people try to suggest you are not apply the rule properly if you are not applying rules they see on TV more often.

And college coaches and I am sure NBA coaches certainly must have tried to cheat the system and I can assume that is why their rules are different then the NF on this issue.

Peace

It was a terminology change at the NCAA level. Flagrant 1 is for all practical purposes identical the NFHS intentional; and my point still stands. In the OP, the application is identical for college and high school.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The general public pays very little attention to women's basketball.

True, but women's basketball still ranks higher then IRL (Indy Racing League) in most polls, so there must be a few million fans paying attention to women's basketball out there. We shouldn't discount those players, fans, coaches, parents, and officials, on the Forum. Whether it's high school girls basketball, or NCAA Women, or the WNBA, or Olympic women's basketball, or overseas women's basketball, it may not be to the liking of some, or many, Forum members, but it's still basketball, it needs good officiating, and it's worth our attention. Plus, the members of the Forum do not represent the "general public", most members care very deeply about basketball, in some cases, maybe a just few cases, female basketball, certainly more so than the general public.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

When the rule says the injured player "must withdraw" does this mean for the entire game, or just for that period until he/she can reenter the game?

Originally Posted by Adam

What does the rule say about how long a player must sit out if he's forced to be subbed out due to injury?

NFHS 3-3-4: A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall
not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been
started properly following his/her replacement.

Or, in other words, a player, with very rare exceptions, must "sit a tick" (but he doesn't have to "play a tick").

Ok, everything makes sense now. I had the idea that an injured player is one who cannot return to the game due to his injury. However, outside of concussions, it does not seem to me as though the Federation wants officials to be the judges of who can and cannot play due to injury. We simply have to follow the correct substitution rules for whoever the coach removes from the game or sends to the table. No more Injury Police™.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

No more Injury Police™.

Great. Now I've got to do an internet image search for a new badge.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Ok, everything makes sense now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

True, but women's basketball still ranks higher then IRL (Indy Racing League) in most polls, so there must be a few million fans paying attention to women's basketball out there. We shouldn't discount those players, fans, coaches, parents, and officials on the Forum. It's basketball, maybe not to the liking of some, or many, Forum members, but it's still basketball, it needs good officiating, and it's worth our attention.

This has nothing to do with discounting who supports a sport. This is about what is likely going to happen and what is likely you will have people claim is a rule at the NF or HS level? Still the percentage of people that quote a specific NCAA Women's rule is so rare I cannot think of the last time I have even heard a specific NCAA Women's suggested by a player or coach in the an actual game. And I was only trying to illustrate that there is a rules difference and someone might think the NF is the same as another level. It happens all the time where an NBA rule is assumed to apply. Who cares at this point of the NCAAM or NCAAW rule is different? And since I am the one that made the point to not apply the NCAA rule, it seems silly to point out where the the differences are at the NCAA level. I did not quote the NCAA rule on purpose.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This has nothing to do with discounting who supports a sport. This is about what is likely going to happen and what is likely you will have people claim is a rule at the NF or HS level? Still the percentage of people that quote a specific NCAA Women's rule is so rare I cannot think of the last time I have even heard a specific NCAA Women's suggested by a player or coach in the an actual game. And I was only trying to illustrate that there is a rules difference and someone might think the NF is the same as another level. It happens all the time where an NBA rule is assumed to apply. Who cares at this point of the NCAAM or NCAAW rule is different? And since I am the one that made the point to not apply the NCAA rule, it seems silly to point out where the the differences are at the NCAA level. I did not quote the NCAA rule on purpose.

All true, but your statement, "The general public pays very little attention to women's basketball", has very little meaning on an internet forum that specifically deals with officiating basketball, which includes, to the dismay of some, but, I'm sure, not all, Forum members, basketball played by females. The general public has very little to do with what transpires here on the Forum. The general public does occasionally post on this Forum, but almost all of the posts are by basketball officials, some who officiate basketball games with female participants, including me. I don't officiate college basketball, but I do have a slight interest in the difference between NCAAM, and NCAAW, rules, interpretations, and mechanics. Thus, I appreciated JetMetFan's post, maybe I was the only Forum member who did, but I'd bet a dime (indicating my lack of confidence in my wager) that I probably wasn't the only Forum member who did. I'm pretty sure that JetMetFan appreciated his own post, so maybe I'm up a dime.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

All true, but your statement, "The general public pays very little attention to women's basketball", has very little meaning on an internet forum that specifically deals with officiating basketball, which includes, to the dismay of some, but, I'm sure, not all, Forum members, basketball played by females. The general public has very little to do with what transpires here on the Forum. The general public does occasionally post on this Forum, but almost all of the posts are by basketball officials, some who officiate basketball games with female participants, including me. I don't officiate college basketball, but I do have a slight interest in the difference between NCAAM, and NCAAW, rules, interpretations, and mechanics.

OK, so what is your point? This is not about interest.

Most officials here do not work NCAA games on any level either as well. That is why I did not post the specific NCAA rule on the issue. Just wanted it to be known that rule like other NCAA rules often get sublimated to NF situations and rules. And once again, this specific situation in my experience I have heard officials allow a coach or have to stop a coach from claiming they can choose the shooter when a player is injured after a foul. Just wait, you will see people trying to use the NCAA rule for block/charge consideration after they have read the change and assume that change applies to high school players.

Another example is how many times I see POI used in technical foul in all situations by officials that do not even work NCAA games in the first place while the Men's and Women's rules are somewhat different in some situations. This has nothing to do about interest, just warning not to apply a rule from a level they are not likely working under. Not sure why that is hard to understand?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just warning not to apply a rule from a level they are not likely working under. Not sure why that is hard to understand?

JetMetFan made his post to show the difference in NCAAM, NCAAW, and NFHS rules regarding this situation. I still can't see any harm in that, especially on a basketball rules forum, a forum that often deals with more than one set of rules, and has some members that may have to deal with more than one set of rules while officiating. Even some high school games, that use officials that are most familiar with NFHS rules, will often use another rule set, or a modified rule set, i.e., NCAAM, and NCAAW, rules for prep school games here in Connecticut, and, I believe, some NCAA rules for high school games in New York, and Massachusetts. JetMetFan should be commended for his post. Not sure why that is hard to understand?

And, although true, I contend that the statement, "The general public pays very little attention to women's basketball", really has no place in a basketball officiating forum, unless, of course, the thread is about the popularity of a particular "brand" of basketball. What do Forum members care what the general public likes, or doesn't like, about basketball played by females. Just because something is true doesn't make it "postable", especially when JetMetFan's post is being questioned as appropriate, or necessary, to the thread. I'm not so sure that, "The general public pays very little attention to women's basketball", is appropriate, or necessary, to this thread, maybe others, but not this one. Not sure why that is hard to understand?

[JRutledge]

Well great commend whomever you like. I just found it an irrelevant point to make (my right to have an opinion). We were not debating the different NCAA gender differences. And since I was making the point originally, it had nothing to do with what I was saying and no one has yet to quote the rule (which I choose to do on purpose). And since he quoted my post, I have a right to comment on that post and what I think of it. No big deal.

I will say this, his post was more relevant to the topic then most of your post Billy.

Peace