Intentional foul and sub?

So a team can sub a better FT shooter for the "injured" player, shoot the FT's, and have the "injured" player reenter the game at the next dead ball or with a timeout? Seems like a big advantage to allow a better FT shooter to shoot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

So a team can sub a better FT shooter for the "injured" player, shoot the FT's, and have the "injured" player reenter the game at the next dead ball or with a timeout? Seems like a big advantage to allow a better FT shooter to shoot.

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.

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?

[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?

[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 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 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 AremRed

So a team can sub a better FT shooter for the "injured" player, shoot the FT's, and have the "injured" player reenter the game at the next dead ball?

Don't forget the "sit a tick" rule. If the poor free throw shooting "injured" player is their best ball handler, or top scorer, or top defender, or their tallest front line player, and top rebounder, that player may have to sit on the bench for quite some time, possibly several minutes. It's seems like a small price to pay to get a good free throw shooter on the line, but it could come back to bite the coach in the butt. Add that to the fact that even the best free throw shooter can miss a few in a row, and even the worst free throw shooter can make a few in a row, so "taking advantage of the rules" becomes a real gamble, probably a good gamble but, nevertheless, a gamble.