Five on the court, one is injured

[bainsey]

Earlier today, V team brings six players. One fouls out.

Fourth quarter: While V-3 is holding the ball, V-14 rolls her ankle and goes down. I stop play and beckon the coach. Coach V is hesitant to come out, admitting that she didn't want to lose V-14 if she came out (not that it mattered, as already beckoned her).

My veteran partner tells the coach V-14 can come back in if she takes a time out. Coach V agrees.

During the time out, I discuss with my partner that I'm not sure a time out was necessary, since the team only had five players available. He points out that V-14 needed the time out to recover, anyway. It was a very wise point.

Setting the point aside, though, let's see V-14 wanted to play right away, even after a coach beckon with only five available players. V-14 would not have to sit a tick, correct?

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Earlier today, V team brings six players. One fouls out.

Fourth quarter: While V-3 is holding the ball, V-14 rolls her ankle and goes down. I stop play and beckon the coach. Coach V is hesitant to come out, admitting that she didn't want to lose V-14 if she came out (not that it mattered, as already beckoned her).

My veteran partner tells the coach V-14 can come back in if she takes a time out. Coach V agrees.

During the time out, I discuss with my partner that I'm not sure a time out was necessary, since the team only had five players available. He points out that V-14 needed the time out to recover, anyway. It was a very wise point.

Setting the point aside, though, let's see V-14 wanted to play right away, even after a coach beckon with only five available players. V-14 would not have to sit a tick, correct?

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.

[frezer11]

Rule 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..."

This may be specific to the start of the game, but I think the point still remains that the team must continue with less than five if it has no substitutes available.

I would allow it as I use my 2-3 powers to determine playing with 5 is more important than making a player sit out due to "sit a tick".

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

See NFHS Casebook Play 8.2 Situation B.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

See NFHS Casebook Play 8.2 Situation B.

8.2 SITUATION B:

A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1's first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B's only remaining eligible substitute) replaces B2. A1's second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for A1's missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3 in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still not able to play after the time out has ended.

RULING: B2 may return to the game and replace B3 and shoot B3's free throw attempts despite having been replaced since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by AremRed

8.2 SITUATION B:

A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1's first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B's only remaining eligible substitute) replaces B2. A1's second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for A1's missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3 in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still not able to play after the time out has ended.

RULING: B2 may return to the game and replace B3 and shoot B3's free throw attempts despite having been replaced since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

I think this ruling directly contradicts the rules. 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."

Despite this, the ruling must be followed. However, the case play is materially different from OP's situation. In the case play, officials have awarded free throws because of a personal foul. In OP's situation, there are no free throws. I don't see any reason why V-14 should be allowed to remain a player.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

I think this ruling directly contradicts the rules. 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."

Despite this, the ruling must be followed. However, the case play is materially different from OP's situation. In the case play, officials have awarded free throws because of a personal foul. In OP's situation, there are no free throws. I don't see any reason why V-14 should be allowed to remain a player.

It most certainly does NOT contradict the rules. In both the situation in the OP and the CB Play there are two applicable rules that are in direct opposition to each other. One rule has to supercede the other. The rules require a team to have five players on the court if it has five players who are eligible to play.

NFHS CB Play 8.2 Sit. B addresses not who shall attempt the FTs, but whether a Player can re-enter before the Clock has started after he/she has left the game and that is where the conflict in the rules lies. The CB Play Ruling address the return of the Player who has left the game and that is the Ruling that applies to the play in the OP.

MTD, Sr.

[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)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

See NFHS Casebook Play 8.2 Situation B.

MTD, Sr.

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.

[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.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It most certainly does NOT contradict the rules. In both the situation in the OP and the CB Play there are two applicable rules that are in direct opposition to each other. One rule has to supercede the other. The rules require a team to have five players on the court if it has five players who are eligible to play.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.