Unusual situation

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No rule ever trumps another! The rules work together, not in conflict with each other.
You recall the Case Book play correctly. It was also MTD's argument when submitting it that the provision to play with five should "trump" the substitution rule requiring a just exited team member to not return until after the clock has properly started. Unfortunately, the NFHS rules editor at the time bought his silliness because she was never a strong rules person.

The correct ruling is that this is one of the times when a team temporarily plays with fewer than five. At the next stoppage in play after the clock has run either team member would be eligible to enter. I refer you to the asthma attack interp which predates MTD's case play.

SITUATION 9: Team A is playing with five players, but has no substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. Must the player leave the game? May Team A continue with four players? May the player return after recovering from the asthma attack? RULING: A team may continue with fewer than five when there are no substitutes available. The injured/ill player leaving the game may return if/when he or she is able. (3-1-i)

May continue with less than 5 and must continue with less than 5 are not the same.

Your assertion puts the sit-a-tick rule over the 5-players rule if there 5 eligible players. The substitution rule doesn't change a player's eligibility. Eligibility in this case is referring to disqualfications/injuries. Either way you go, one trumps the other.

In fact, the very situation you cite above says they may return when he or she is able. It places no restriction on when he/she may return. It doesn't say he or she may return at the next opportunity after the clock has run. It says when able...that might be right away, perhaps after a couple of FTs and before the clock has started.

The whole point of the substitution rule is not about making a team play with 4, it is to prevent from voluntarily taking someone out and putting them back in by choice. It is intended to speed up the game around FTs by preventing a revolving door after every FT depending on if they are made ore not (1+1, and actually 2 or 3 since that rule predates the rule on only allowing subs before the possible last shot).

[Nevadaref]

All a matter of opinion Camron.
Just like the play ruling from Mary and MTD.

The crux is: How is the team member who just subbed out to be classified?
I have him as currently ineligible to enter. Why? Because there is a rule which says so. The team just burned him when it decided to take him out. This would be the same is he was directed to the bench for wearing his uniform improperly or for blood. He can't play right now. He has to wait and come back later.

The NFHS rules allow for a team to temporarily play with fewer than five when there aren't any available subs. So there is no conflict here and no trumping of one rule by another. You simply enforce both. It's no big deal.

Question for our baseball guys: what happens if a team uses all of its substitutes and then a player suffers a serious injury?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How is the team member who just subbed out to be classified? I have him as currently ineligible to enter.

In general, this is certainly true, but there are exceptions (casebook play). These exceptions are few, and far between, but they do happen, and a good official needs to be aware of them.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

All a matter of opinion Camron.
Just like the play ruling from Mary and MTD.

The crux is: How is the team member who just subbed out to be classified?
I have him as currently ineligible to enter. Why? Because there is a rule which says so. The team just burned him when it decided to take him out. This would be the same is he was directed to the bench for wearing his uniform improperly or for blood. He can't play right now. He has to wait and come back later.

The NFHS rules allow for a team to temporarily play with fewer than five when there aren't any available subs. So there is no conflict here and no trumping of one rule by another. You simply enforce both. It's no big deal.

Question for our baseball guys: what happens if a team uses all of its substitutes and then a player suffers a serious injury?

In FED, they play with 8, and it's an out when that spot comes up.

If they get to 7, or in other codes, it's a forfeit (although the specific timing might vary based on whether the injury was on offense or defense)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

May continue with less than 5 and must continue with less than 5 are not the same.

Your assertion puts the sit-a-tick rule over the 5-players rule if there 5 eligible players. The substitution rule doesn't change a player's eligibility. Eligibility in this case is referring to disqualfications/injuries. Either way you go, one trumps the other.

While I agree that we should go with 5 when it conflicts, I disagree with this last statement. Substitution rules do affect eligibility, momentarily. Another example is with who is an eligible substitute for technical foul FTs.