NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also think that if a player is brought in to just shoot FTs for the T, I am going to allow all other substitutes that are ready to come in as well, especially if that player that is coming out was given a T.

You think right, 100% correct, it's already covered in the existing rule, and has been covered in the rule for the past fifteen years, since the rule's inception: "During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls ...". The substitution restrictions never have covered multiple free throws for technical fouls.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You think right, it's already covered in the existing rule: "During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls". The substitution restrictions never have covered multiple free throws for technical fouls.

It has already been interpreted by either my state or the NF (I am not looking this up) that you can bring in all subs during a disqualification sub or technical situation when subs are already coming in the game. I have always done it that way and never had anyone hold up the rule and say it was incorrect. And the way I understand this, no one really cares because the purpose of the rule is to prevent unnecessary delays. You are not delaying anything if subs can already come into the game at that time and the opponent has their subs ready to go.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It has already been interpreted by either my state or the NF that you can bring in all subs during a disqualification sub or technical situation when subs are already coming in the game.

And you would be 100% correct: 3-3-1-C Exception: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter the game.

The only problem is that, in Nevadaref's post, there is no player who has been required to be replaced (injury, blood, untucked jersey, disqualification, jewelry, illegal equipment, etc.), so we need to look at another rule to allow an "early" substitution.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... purpose of the rule is to prevent unnecessary delays.

And you would be 100% correct again.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Or we can go with the Intent and Purpose of this substitution restriction rule, "to minimize time taken for substitutions ... does not preclude a substitution(s) during free throws" (Comments On The 1998-99 Basketball Rules Revisions). Since we're already taking few extra seconds to make sure we handle this false multiple foul situation correctly, we might as well beckon in the substitute(s).

[JRutledge]

So is the debate that someone is not at the table waiting to be subbed for?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So is the debate that someone is not at the table waiting to be subbed for?

The debate is that, in Nevadaref's post, the first two free throws are for the personal foul portion of the false multiple foul, and, according to some (who may be correct), even in this false multiple foul situation, we have substitution restrictions until after that first free throw (for the personal foul) has been attempted. According to some, this would not allow us to get the T'd up (not disqualified) player substituted for until after the first free throw, when some, including RefCT, and the kid's coach, would like to get him out of the game sooner, to separate him from his opponents (probably all standing behind the division line), thus avoiding further problems.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

I guess I do not see this as a big deal. For one working 3 person, there is usually one of us that can watch that player. If the player is really a problem to the coach, he/she will be talking to them directly anyway. But officiating basketball is often a feel thing anyway, so I do see your point. I just do not see the big deal either way. If the coach cannot control his/her player, they will be subjected to other rules that could cost the team and the coach knows this. And not all Ts are about the opponent either. Some are directed at you as an official and I do not need a kid to be off the floor to handle my business. Kids say and do things on the bench too.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I do not see this as a big deal ... I just do not see the big deal either way.

Another reason why we probably don't need RefCT's suggested rule change.