Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
While the case book play does have the 5th player returning to the court, I don't believe that this is necessary by the exact wording of the rules book (10-1-9):
"Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."
|
I think this is a case where we can reasonably ask what the purpose and intent of the rule is. And I'm pretty sure that the purpose and intent of the rule is to prevent a team from intentionally holding a player out. This is usually done so they can sneak the player back on the court later to gain an advantage.
But even if it's done for a nobler purpose (in a gesture of good sportsmanship to play 4-on-4), we know that it's not legal. But even in that case, withholding the player is
intentional.
I don't think the rule is intended to penalize a team who unintentionally puts itself at a disadvantage. That just doesn't make any sense at all to me. We have other examples of things that by a strict reading of the rule should be a technical foul, but b/c of genuine confusion on the part of the offender, the technical is not assessed. (Taking the ball OOB after your team has just scored, for example.)
I would not assess a T in this situation if the player stayed at the table and waited for the next opportunity to sub in. This is clearly the result of confusion and only puts the offending team at a disadvantage.