Illegal Sub? - or nothing?

[waltjp]

NFHS Rule 3-7-3
During the same dead-ball interval, no substitute shall become a player and then withdraw and no player shall withdraw and re-enter as a substitute unless a penalty is accepted, a dead-ball foul occurs, there is a charged time-out or the period ends.

Case Book 3.7.3 Situation A
B11 mistakenly believes he is his team's 12th player and leaves the field before the snap (b) on his sideline and enters his team box. B11 then discovers his error and returns to the field on his team's side of the neutral zone before the snap. RULING: In (b) once he left the field, he was no longer a player, and by coming back onto the field, is an illegal substitute.

Redding Page 127
A player who returns to his team box, realized he was supposed to stay in the game, and then returns to the field does not commit a foul because he does not lose his status as a player when he enters the team area while the ball is dead. He is not a replaced player because he was not notified by a substitute that he was to leave the field and he is not a substitute because there was not a player vacancy for him to fill.

The NFHS Case Book has an * indicating this as a change. Last year's Case Book said this was legal.

Redding also has their play highlighted as a change for this year.

So, foul or no foul?

[DJ_NV]

I say no foul. Redding is right that the player did not lose his status as a 'player' per 2-31-1 or 2-31-12. So I would say by rule, no foul.

Now I would also say this is no foul from a common sense point of view as well. If it is a true error and not deception (and I don't know how it could be if the player is a member of Team B) then this is a clear example of not going looking for trouble (or fouls). Leave it alone. If it's a Team A player, then just watch it a little more closely but still you really don't have anything by rule. What you might have is a 7-2-1 infraction for the player not being inside the 9-yard marks after the RFP so watch that from a deception standpoint but make that one big too if you're going to have it.

[Theisey]

I also happen to agree with Redding interpretation this on.

However, there is a conflict between the two sources of information that really needs to be corrected.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Theisey

I also happen to agree with Redding interpretation this on.

However, there is a conflict between the two sources of information that really needs to be corrected.

I agree that this is no foul and have gotten into 2 pretty heated conversations this week while trying to defend my position. And I'm just considering a simple mistake, player runs off and then back on. If there was an attempt to deceive then yes, penalize.

The odd thing is that both sources have this marked as a change for this year. I checked last year's Redding guide, which says it's illegal BUT that was marked as a change from 2004.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I agree with Redding and my learned colleagues who have already responded. This is not a foul.

[mcrowder]

I believe that when the two sources are in conflict, it's best to look at the rulebook. In this case, the rulebook has definitions for "player" and "substitute" which seem to me to indicate that the Redding interp is correct. Assuming no attempt to deceive, this player was never substituted for, and thus never lost his status as a player (despite the CB play).