[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Nevada's 10.1.9 situation is post #3 clearly has a deception act to it. There is no such deceptive element in the OP.

Not true. The NFHS does not care about deception in this case. It is not the basis for the ruling. That's a concern in a situation involving a possible player technical foul. In this case the NFHS actually issued an interp which came out during the previous year and eventually became the new case play. The NFHS is definitely aware that the situation is due to confusion and that no advantage is gained, yet wants a T called here anyway. See my earlier post containing this NFHS Interpretation. (Post #21)
"Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage..."

Originally Posted by mbyron

Point 1: This is not correct, and I have to go with Nevada on this one. The rule states that the T is for players not all returning at the same time. That leaves open whether one or more players returns at a later time or fails to return. The implication you assert is not there.

Point 2: The case is an example of not returning with the others. A different example would be a player who did not return at all. They are both ways of failing to return at the same time, which is the grounds of the T.

The rule clearly states that the T is for failing to return at the same time, not for returning at a different time.

That is very elegantly stated. You have to be a professional writer of some kind. Nice job.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree. I think the rule *should be* (at least similar to) what Camron says, but I think the FED has written it as Nevada says.

What I'd like to see: If a team is dumb enough to start play with 4, then they live with that disadvantage until there's an opportunity to substitute. If a team is dumb enough to start play with 6, then it's a T for gaining an advantage not intended by rules.

Bob, I've already gone on record on this forum stating that I agree with what you've written above in previous threads on this. That is what the rule SHOULD be, but isn't. That would be a better rule in my opinion.