Player Game Entry

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
Even during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission), where there are no substitutions?

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with what happens during a timeout.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with what happens during a timeout.

Not including my own posts:

ezmcgowan wrote
Here's the scenario I need help with: After a timeout ...?

Freddy wrote
Except the play in question occurs after a time out, not a lengthy substitution.

PG_Ref wrote
A team shall not: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission.
Caseplay 10.1.9 SITUATION: Following a charged time-out ...

Adam wrote
There is no reason a timeout should last more than 60 seconds, and substitutions are the least acceptable reason.

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?

There are more.

This whole thread is about a person in uniform sitting on the bench after a timeout instead of returning to the floor where he belongs.

There are also posts regarding whether, or not, said person on the bench is a player, or is bench personnel.

It is my contention that said person is a player in both this situation, and in another situation in which an indirect technical foul is not being charged to the head coach because said person is not bench personnel.

The definition of a player in one situation should be the same as the definition in another situation.

Some posters in this thread ...

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..

... contend that just because the person is not within the boundaries of the playing court (blue line all the way around) that it's impossible for said person to be considered a player. Although I have some other questions about some other aspects of this thread, aspects where, although I have an opinion, I'm unsure of the correct interpretation, I reject that contention (person is not within the boundaries of the playing court, it's impossible for said person to be considered a player) wholeheartedly.

If said person is a player during a timeout, then that person should be considered a player after a timeout, unless a substitution, or a disqualification, occurs, even when they're sitting on the bench. Also, 3-3-1-A-Note tells us that said person is also player after an intermission (although not during the intermission).

just another ref

During....................after Do you not understand the difference?

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
During, After ... Do you not understand the difference?

Do you not understand that I'm using the definition of a player during a timeout to see how a player is defined after the timeout? As far as I know, that definition doesn't change because the timeout ends (although the situation changes if it's an intermission, and it ends).

Do you still defend this:

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..

If B5 was a player before the timeout, he was a player during the timeout, and he was a player after the time out, unless he was substituted for, or was disqualified, whether he's sitting on the bench, or playing the game within the boundaries of the playing court.

JetMetFan wrote
I can see where this can/would cause confusion. According to 3-3-3 there are only two ways a player ceases being a player:

*after (their) substitute becomes a player
*after notification of the coach following (their) disqualification

No one substituted for B5 so their "player" status never ended.

just another ref

With regard to the OP, it makes no difference whether this person is a player or not while on the bench.

If you insist on pursuing this angle: Player A1-A5 are in the game prior to a timeout. During the timeout A10 is told to enter the game but does not report. After the timeout A10 enters the game and play is allowed to resume, but both A4 and A5 mistakenly remain seated on the bench. Question: Which one is a player at this point? Answer: neither

BillyMac

Freddy wrote
"What is the role of the Casebook?".

I view the casebook as being very specific. I view the rulebook as being more general.

Sometimes the rulebook can be ambiguous. Most of the time the casebook is more to the point.

The casebook often states that when A and B happen then we interpret it as C and penalize with D. It's pretty hard for a coach, athletic director, or assigner to argue with that.

The rulebook is often more open to interpretation (which show up as NFHS interpretations in the casebook (thus the need for a casebook), or in annual rule interpretations), even when one knows the definitions like the back of their hand.

Some casebook interpretations could never be interpreted in a specific manner if we only relied upon the rulebook.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
Player A1-A5 are in the game prior to a timeout. During the timeout A10 is told to enter the game but does not report. After the timeout A10 enters the game and play is allowed to resume, but both A4 and A5 mistakenly remain seated on the bench. Question: Which one is a player at this point? Answer: Neither

4-34-3: A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court.
If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live.
A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or
after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

A10 is a player. I don't know if A4, or A5, is a player. I do know that, by definition, one of them is a player, and, by definition, one of them is bench personnel. I do know that if either A4, or A5, come off the bench to score an uncontested layup, I'm blowing the play dead as was described in the original post.

In the case where either A4, or A5, curse at me from the bench, short of any input from the coach regarding the substitution, I'm probably calling both of them players and hand out the lesser penalty (no indirect to the coach).

I don't see how a coach, athletic director, or assigner, could find fault with my handling of these situations. It would be difficult for any of them to find any written fault with how I handled this.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
With regard to the OP, it makes no difference whether this person is a player or not while on the bench.

It does if you're going to use that as the basis for charging, or not charging, the technical foul under10-1-9, claiming that all the players, all four of them (the fifth was bench personnel) came onto the court at the same time so 10-1-9 does not apply (as just another ref claimed in an earlier post).

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

If just another ref allowed B5 to make the uncontested layup with no penalty because B5 was, according to his definition, bench personnel, would one think that the coach, athletic director, or assigner could have a problem with his interpretation in light of the casebook play?

In light of all that's been posted in this thread, especially JetMetFan's citation (3-3-3), do you still believe this:

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..

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
In the case where either A4, or A5, curse at me from the bench, short of any input from the coach regarding the substitution, I'm probably calling both of them players and hand out the lesser penalty (no indirect to the coach).

I have a huge problem with this. The whole purpose of the indirect to the coach is: Coach, you are responsible for your bench.

ART. 2 Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with
a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and
statistician(s). During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

Even if you insist that he is a player (why?) for the purpose of this rule if he is on the bench he is also bench personnel.

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
If just another ref allowed B5 to make the uncontested layup with no penalty because B5 was, according to his definition, bench personnel, would one think that the coach, athletic director, or assigner could have a problem with his interpretation in light of the casebook play?

You're really off the deep end now. Couple of things: First, I'm not that concerned about the problems of the coach, the athletic director, or even the assignor. I'm interested in getting it right. Second, more important, where did I, or anyone, say it was okay for any member of bench personnel to enter during a live ball regardless of his past or future status as a player?

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
Even if you insist that he is a player (why?)...

I only used the indirect technical foul situation to make a point about whether, or not ,B5, is a player, or bench personnel. It does matter. Players getting technical fouls do not normally generate indirect technical fouls to the head coach, a pretty important fact to know.

Start another thread about this if you wish. I honestly don't know how I would react to this (indirects) in a real game, and if it would be any different than how I answered on a written exam.

Again, in light of all that's been posted in this thread, especially JetMetFan's citation (3-3-3), do you still believe this:

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..

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
Again, in light of all that's been posted in this thread, especially JetMetFan's citation (3-3-3), do you still believe this:

The definition of a player, quoted above, is simple enough. There is no provision for a player to be seated on the bench during a live ball. 3-3-3 assumes normal circumstances. When the officials allowed the game to resume with 4 players, the situation is no longer normal.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
I'm not that concerned about the problems of the coach, the athletic director, or even the assignor. I'm interested in getting it right.

Don't you think that they, like you, and me, want the situation to be handled correctly.

just another ref wrote
Where did I say it was okay for any member of bench personnel to enter during a live ball regardless of his past or future status as a player?

You never said that is was okay. You implied that you would not penalize under 10-1-9 because all the players (the fifth was bench personnel) did, in reality, come out at the same time. I assumed that you would penalize for some other unsporting reason. The uncontersted layup line was for dramatic effect and I apologize for that.

PG_Ref wrote
NFHS: 10-1 ART. 9 A team shall not: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission.

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

just another ref wrote
The definition of a player, quoted above, is simple enough. There is no provision for a player to be seated on the bench during a live ball. 3-3-3 assumes normal circumstances. When the officials allowed the game to resume with 4 players, the situation is no longer normal.

Let's make this "more normal", and less complicated, by not resuming play after a timeout.

Team A requests, and is granted, a timeout. No substitutions are made during this timeout period. During the timeout, while sitting on the bench, one of the uniformed members of the team, who was a player before the timeout, curses at a nearby official. Said uniformed member of the team is charged with a technical foul. Is the head coach charged with an indirect technical foul? The question is not should he be charged, for philosophical reasons, with an indirect, the question is, by written rule, is he charged with an indirect technical foul.

just another ref wrote
ART. 2: Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and statistician(s). During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

The definition includes the word "not limited to" but I find it rather odd that substitutes are mentioned, but not players. I also find it rather odd that it mentions that all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior during an intermission, but fails to mention the same for a timeout.

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
Don't you think that they, like you, want the situation to be handled correctly.

You have made repeated references to these others having a problem with your interpretation. My point was that this is not something that ever enters my mind during a game.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
My point was that this is not something that ever enters my mind during a game.

Getting it right is what enters my mind during the game. Questioning myself if I got it right enters my mind after the game, especially a game in which a coach is ejected, especially in a written report to my assigner, and to the state interscholastic sports governing body.

OKREF

OKREF wrote
Let's take this one more step. 10-1 says it's penalized when the fifth player returns. What if they play with four and there is a dead ball. B5 legally subs in. Technical foul? I would think no.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Adam

OKREF wrote
So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I'm with you on this. I'm not calling it unless the 5th player comes running out during play.

BryanV21

If B5 was a player before the time out, and wasn't substituted for or disqualified (and the coach has been informed), then he's a player during and after the timeout. Regardless of whether or not he enters the court. So if B5 earns a technical foul during the time out, or after the time out but doesn't return to the court, then the head coach should not get an indirect tech.

But if B5 was substituted for during the time out, and THEN earned a tech, the head coach does get an indirect tech, as B5 was bench personnel at the time.

Now, if we can't determine if B5 was a player or bench personnel at the time he earns a tech, then I'm not giving the head coach an indirect. At least the way I understand things right now. I don't want to have to eject that coach without being sure it was the correct call.

Oh, and it seems that the team would only earn a technical foul when the 5th player illegally enters the court (like in the OP). My question at this point is this... is it ever legal for that fifth player to return to the court? Can the team play with 4 players until the next stoppage of play, and at that time the 5th player can legally enter the court?

Freddy

Quote of a Previous Quote by OKREF:
Let's take this one more step. 10-1 says it's penalized when the fifth player returns. What if they play with four and there is a dead ball. B5 legally subs in. Technical foul? I would think no.

(Follow Up Question by the Author):

OKREF wrote
So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yes. Thoughts:
#1, 10-1 doesn't say that it's penalized when the fifth player returns. It says, "Penalized when they (referring to Arts. 3,4,5,8,9,10) occur." When what occurs? "When a team fails to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission." That means that your conclusion, "Technical foul? I would think no" is based on emotion perhaps, but not based on rule 10-1-9 and it's associated prescribed penalty.
#2, the related Casebook citation does support something you suggest, the execution of the penalty when that fifth player does return into the game. That's what attracted the attention of the officials that something was wrong. But that Casebook situation also had an illegitimate advantage that resulted when the fifth player finally decided to run onto the court. The illegal status of having failed to "have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out..." wasn't discovered by an official until this illegitimate advantage occurred. In this sitch what was illegal was not just the return to the court, it was the "failing to have all players return at approximately the same time." The technical could actually have been called any time an official realized that the team failed to do what it's supposed to do when it was supposed to do it, that is return all five players to the court after a timeout at approximately the same time.
#3, I'm not saying I agree with all this. Only saying that this is all what the rule says. In fact, this has always been one of the ten rules I don't think are fair, that a team is penalized for erringly playing with four players. Heck, if they put themselves at a numbers disadvantage by their own fault, I rationalize that they should be required to play like that until at least the next dead ball. But that's not the rule.
#4, I reserve the right to be wrong. But I don't think I am...on this rule and casebook situation. Then again, there's sometimes a fine line between confidence and cockiness.

« Previous Page Next Page »