Player Game Entry

bob jenkins

Freddy wrote
Some around here insist that, since team B is playing with only four players, they'd just let it play out; after all, why penalize a team that is, by playing only four players, penalizing themselves--that's the rationalization.

I think that should be the rule -- if you resume play with 4 (whether after a TO or a substitution), then play with 4 until the next opportunity to substitute. Or, treat it like an injury in that play is stopped after the "injured player's team" gets the ball.

Freddy

Camron Rust wrote
If B5 doesn't return, there is no penalty.

I deem that incorrect by virtue of the PENALTY stated at the end of 10-1: "(Art.3,4,5,8,9,10) Penalized when they occur."
Occurance would be whether B5 entered or not, given the wording of the rule.
Right?

just another ref

Freddy wrote
I deem that incorrect by virtue of the PENALTY stated at the end of 10-1: "(Art.3,4,5,8,9,10) Penalized when they occur."
Occurance would be whether B5 entered or not, given the wording of the rule.
Right?

A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time......

If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player. So the 4 on the court in this case are all the players.

I'm with Camron here.

Camron Rust

Freddy wrote
I deem that incorrect by virtue of the PENALTY stated at the end of 10-1: "(Art.3,4,5,8,9,10) Penalized when they occur."
Occurance would be whether B5 entered or not, given the wording of the rule.
Right?

The "when they occur" is when the 5th "player" returns at a later time, not when the 4 players enter without the 4th. If only 4 return, all that did so did return at the same time.

Freddy

just another ref wrote
A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time......

If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player. So the 4 on the court in this case are all the players.

I'm with Camron here.

What's the intent of the rule?

Adam

Freddy wrote
What's the intent of the rule?

The intent is not to prevent them from playing with 4, there's already a rule for that. The intent is to prevent deceit, IMO.

Freddy

Adam wrote
The intent is not to prevent them from playing with 4, there's already a rule for that. The intent is to prevent deceit, IMO.

Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?

Adam

Freddy wrote
Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?

No, just the rule that says they have to play with 5 if they're available.

Freddy

Adam wrote
No, just the rule that says they have to play with 5 if they're available.

I see that point based on 3-1, in regards to which 3.1.1 dictates: "Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available."

Therefore, is it not a logical, sound application of this same rule that, for instance, if a team is caught playing with only four players after a timeout or intermission, that they be then assessed a team technical if/when it is detected that they failed "...to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission"? Especially when that's what 10-1-9 actually says?

Adam

Freddy wrote
I see that point based on 3-1, in regards to which 3.1.1 dictates: "Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available."

Therefore, is it not a logical, sound application of this same rule that, for instance, if a team is caught playing with only four players after a timeout or intermission, that they be then assessed a team technical if/when it is detected that they failed "...to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission"? Especially when that's what 10-1-9 actually says?

Check local listings.

MathReferee

Freddy wrote
Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?

"My team is on the floor." 😉

BillyMac

BadNewsRef wrote
No, that's a timeout...you only complicate things for younger officials when you introduce such thinking.

Thus my statement (twice, now three times) about my post about a lengthy substitution being academic (not practical, realistic, or directly useful).

I will agree that I complicated matters for younger officials before I read PG_Ref's great post, and citation, but so did BadNewsRef by continuing the discussion when it was, after all, academic.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.

Sounds good, but what defines the court?

Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)?

I know that all team members are considered bench personnel during intermissions. This rule becomes important when deciding to charge, or not to charge, a coach with an indirect technical foul for technical fouls on players, or on bench personnel, during a timeout, or an intermission. Let's not treat this too casually, it's important, so let's try to figure it out.

HawkeyeCubP

BillyMac wrote
Sounds good, but what defines the court?

Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)?

I know that all team members are considered bench personnel during intermissions. This rule becomes important when deciding to charge, or not to charge, a coach with an indirect technical foul for technical fouls on players, or on bench personnel, during a timeout, or an intermission. Let's not treat this too casually, it's important, so let's try to figure it out.

A player who was a player before the timeout remains a player during a timeout, I believe...

HawkeyeCubP

ezmcgowan wrote
Here's the scenario I need help with: After a timeout, game play starts with one team only having 4 players on the court. Upon realizing they're short, a player runs out from the bench and joins the game. Is this an illegal substitution since there is not really a player swap? If not what is the call? Doesn't this present an opportunity for the 4 man team to sneak a player in to an open spot on the court?

If the player was a pre-time out player:
NFHS: It's a team T for the rule cited already for failure to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time out.
NCAA: Without some sort of intentional deception to gain an advantage in the officials' judgment, there isn't much rule support to call anything.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The 2014-15 season will be my 44th year of officiating basketball and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever restarting a game with one or both teams only having four players on the court.

There are at least two and as many as three officials on the court. The ball should not be put into play until each official has counted all of the players on the court at least twice. The non-administering official(s) should keep one hand in the "stop sign signal" directed to the administering official until he or she is satisfied that there are five players for each team on the court. If you have any doubts as to whether each team as the correct number of players on the court do NOT let the administering official put the ball back into play.

I know that I am sounding curmudgeonerly, BUT, this type of thing should not ever happen.

MTD, Sr.

BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
The 2014-15 season will be my 44th year of officiating basketball and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever restarting a game with one or both teams only having four players on the court.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: How about one team having six players on the court? Be honest.

Camron Rust

HawkeyeCubP wrote
If the player was a pre-time out player:
NFHS: It's a team T for the rule cited already for failure to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time out.
NCAA: Without some sort of intentional deception to gain an advantage in the officials' judgment, there isn't much rule support to call anything.

But again, the ruling specifies, before making the ruling, that several things happened before the 5th player eventually returned. If they wanted it to be an immediate T, it would have stopped the setup when the ball was made live...not after several more actions. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a team from having a player sneak back in late for a potential advantage, intended or not. Thus, the occurrence being penalized is when the missing player enters the court, not when 4 enter without the 5th.

Adam

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
The 2014-15 season will be my 44th year of officiating basketball and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever restarting a game with one or both teams only having four players on the court.

There are at least two and as many as three officials on the court. The ball should not be put into play until each official has counted all of the players on the court at least twice. The non-administering official(s) should keep one hand in the "stop sign signal" directed to the administering official until he or she is satisfied that there are five players for each team on the court. If you have any doubts as to whether each team as the correct number of players on the court do NOT let the administering official put the ball back into play.

I know that I am sounding curmudgeonerly, BUT, this type of thing should not ever happen.

MTD, Sr.

Sounds great, Mark. However, I'm guessing you just forgot. Lots of thing shouldn't happen, but they do. This is one, and discussions about how to deal with it aren't really helped by saying, "This should never happen."

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time. If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player. So the 4 on the court in this case are all the players.

BillyMac wrote
Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)? Let's not treat this too casually, it's important, so let's try to figure it out.

So do we let just another ref's post stand, or does it have to be adjusted? I'm not sure that rookie officials should be hanging their hats on just another ref's statement. Then again, I may be wrong. I have been wrong in the past. Lots of times.

« Previous Page Next Page »