Five on the court, one is injured

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by APG

NFHS Interpretations (2002-2003)

SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor.

RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)

The Ruling in 2002-03 NFHS Interpretations Situation 5 does not apply to the play in the OP. NFHS CP Play 8.2 Situation B is the appropriate CB Play for the play in the OP.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The Ruling in 2002-03 NFHS Interpretations Situation 5 does not apply to the play in the OP. NFHS CP Play 8.2 Situation B is the appropriate CB Play for the play in the OP.

MTD, Sr.

Replace asthma attack with injured ankle, and it's the EXACT same situation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Full disclosure: MTD personally wrote that Case Book play. In my opinion, it is misguided.
The older NFHS interp about a player having an asthma attack and temporarily playing with four is the proper way to handle it, unless a time-out is taken.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

3-1-1 Note: "A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five."

Perhaps 3-1-1 Note legitimizes the case play ruling since in that situation the team did have a substitute available to replace the injured player (even though that substitute wasn't eligible, but that doesn't appear to be a requirement in this particular situation), but at the same time, it also more or less confirms that in OP's situation, if not for the time-out, Team V would have to play with four.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

If not for the charged time-out, V-14 would have to sit until the clock is properly started following her being directed to leave the game. 3-3-6 indicates that "a player who is injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to his/her team..." If that doesn't convince you fully, then look at 3-3-4, which confirms that the "sit a tick" requirement applies not only to players who have been replaced, but also to those who have been directed to leave the game.

Originally Posted by APG

NFHS Interpretations (2002-2003)

SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor.

RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The Ruling in 2002-03 NFHS Interpretations Situation 5 does not apply to the play in the OP. NFHS CP Play 8.2 Situation B is the appropriate CB Play for the play in the OP.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by APG

Replace asthma attack with injured ankle, and it's the EXACT same situation.

Upon further review, I agree with Nevada that 2002-03 NFHS Interpretations Situation 5 applies to the OP. The taking of TO by Team A preserves it right to play with five players if the injured player has recovered by the end of the TO.

In fact, NFHS CB Play 8.2 Situation B really isn't needed in this play because there are no Eligible Substitutes to replace the injured Player; it is very early morning here in the Great State of Ohio and I completely forgot about the 2002-03 Interpretation (Good catch APG).

That said, my CB Play addresses a conflict in the Rules with regard to the whether a team can be forced to play with only four players when it has five eligible players. It is no different that allowing a team to allow a substiute to attempt FTs for a TF that was charged before the start of the game which overrides the the rule that states that a team must be charged with at TO if it changes its starting lineup less that ten minutes before the start of the game.

When there are conflict with the rules one must over-ride the other.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

There is no conflict. The team member who is on the bench in your Case Play has not been DQ'd, but that doesn't automatically make him an eligible substitute. In this case, a specific substitution rule forbids his entry at that point in the contest and he is therefore an ineligible substitute. Thus the team has to continue with four until he becomes eligible. That isn't a difficult concept. You just don't like it, so you conned the NFHS into overriding a rule in order to do what you desire--allow a team member to return to the game improperly.

As for the TF situations prior to the start of the game, the RULES contain specific exceptions to allow for substitutions in those cases.

[potato]

Is there any medic on the scene that can determine whether an injury is deemed serious that the player should not be allowed to continue to play?

If there isn't, then it's up to the coach & player to determine whether if a player is fit to play and the ref should decide whether to allow the player to continue.

I mean if the player rolled the ankle but can still stand and move around, it would still be better to put the player at the defensive side so while the team is facing 4 on 5 on the offense, they'd still have 5 players on the defense.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by potato

Is there any medic on the scene that can determine whether an injury is deemed serious that the player should not be allowed to continue to play?

If there isn't, then it's up to the coach & player to determine whether if a player is fit to play and the ref should decide whether to allow the player to continue.

I mean if the player rolled the ankle but can still stand and move around, it would still be better to put the player at the defensive side so while the team is facing 4 on 5 on the offense, they'd still have 5 players on the defense.

The "ref should decide whether to allow the player to continue" is not something I've heard (outside of maybe some youth rec ball leagues). For scholastic/HS games, we can remove a player for exibiting symptoms consistent with a concussion or who is bleeding or has blood on uniform. And we can stop play and beckon a coach/trainer for any other injury and that player must be replaced or a TO taken.

Beyond that, if a player reports into the game, I'm assuming that he/she is cleared by a trainer and is fit to play. Schools around here are pretty good -- trainer is always around to take a look at any player who leaves due to injury.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The Ruling in 2002-03 NFHS Interpretations Situation 5 does not apply to the play in the OP. NFHS CP Play 8.2 Situation B is the appropriate CB Play for the play in the OP.

MTD, Sr.

Yes it does. It even reads "injured/ill."
You just railroaded a Case Play through the less-than-informed Mary Dtruckhoff a couple of years ago because in your opinion the rule about playing with five is more important than the substitution rules.
I didn't agree with your stance during the debate on this forum several years ago and I still don't agree with it now.