Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

Four Score ...
 

Now I recognize the difference between the two caseplays (as stated earlier), one is after a timeout, one is after substitutions.

However, I fail to recognize the significance of different rulings on very similar, but not exactly the same, circumstances, i.e., playing with four after a break in the action.

There shouldn't be a difference in my opinion. It is something which the NFHS needs to fix.

If you recall, the "lengthy substitution process" case play was added about nine years ago. The other one has been in the books for much longer. Prior to the more recent case play being added to the book, we had discussions on here about how to handle the situation when a team ended up with only four and it wasn't after a time-out or intermission.

Also, please recall that at that time the penalty for a player leaving the floor was a technical foul, not a violation. So we kicked around several proposed solutions--none of which quite fit the situation. It was nice when the NFHS gave us a ruling on the scenario, but it was disappointing to me that the ruling didn't mesh with the "following a time-out or intermission" ruling. I knew then that this would cause confusion. I also don't believe that the newer ruling meshes with the text of 3-3-1 and 4-34-1. Why? Because a team is required to have five players per the first rule and those five are required to be on the court by the second rule. Therefore, it is a problem that one of the five isn't where he is supposed to be.

Checkng It Twice ...
 

Agree. Add it to the list.

The "immediate" in the case follows the return of the 5th player, not the return of the first 4 without the 5th. What occurs that is to be penalized is the return of a player at a different time...that is the occurrence being penalized. That is why the case declares the penalty not until immediately after the return.

The focus of the case is the timing of the return, not the number returning. They don't want a player hanging out at the bench and sneaking back in for an unfair advantage. The are not worried about a team playing with fewer than 5 due to a mistake by a player.

Bob:

You are a veteran college official. When was that last time this happened to you after a TO or another resumption of play.

Yes, doggie doo doo happens but hat doesn't mean we should use that as an excuse for when it does happen.

MTD, Sr.

So according to this ruling, I would assume that any bench player from Team A could jump up and run onto the court without further penalty then? Even without legally checking in at the table, as soon as any substitute enters the court and the ball is live, then they become a player, and it is too late to penalize an illegal entry. I've often thought that if I was in the situation with only 4 players on the court, and someone ran on, I'd have no clue if they should be the player on the court or not, but I think the rule provides that anyone can come on to the court without penalty, assuming of course that the situation truly arose from a genuine confusion, and was not deceitful.

Thoughts? Would my reasoning hold true for one of the original players who was subbed for? They are supposed to "sit a tick," but if they become a player, is it too late to enforce?

In order to be a player a team member would have to enter the game legally, and not reporting to the table before entering is not legal. So a member of the team that had already reported into the game may run onto the court, but not just any team member.

Assuming A5 had already reported/entered the game before the timeout, or reported during the timeout as a sub, then he could run onto the court in this situation.

Agree that they need to report and be beckoned on to legally enter. However, and I don't have my rule book here to quote from, but I believe somewhere in rule 3 that it is specified something like, ".... If the entry is not legal, then the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live." So once the ball was live, which was simultaneous in this case, then that substitute becomes a player.

Not to mention, I don't know of many officials who know who all 5 players on the court were for sure during a mass substitution, other than when you note a specific player going to the bench. So even if I'm incorrect about being too late to penalize, I would say 95% of the time they'd still get away with it.

Yeah, that could be right. I just can't imagine that anybody can run into the court.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

We had a wRECk league situation similar to this and I wondered what the proper ruling was. Our interpreter said it was a Tech.

Player is given a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. In our league this also carries a 2 minute penalty, in which a player must be out of the game for 2 minutes. His team mate is off going to the bathroom or getting a drink and doesn't realize the team is down to 4 players on the floor following the tech. He comes running onto the floor after about 30 seconds of the team playing with only 4. He went to the table, but was not beckoned onto the floor.

What confuses this is that with him not on the bench when the tech was issued, he couldn't come into the game and the team had no other eligible players to come into the game, meaning the team had to play with 4. When he arrived and realized the team only had 4 he was eligible to enter the game, but did not do so legally. When my partner observed him sprint to the table then immediately into the game, he gave him a T.

In reading both case plays it seems that there has to be "intent to deceive". It would be nice if the rules committee would clarify so intent would be removed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO.
A team has FIVE players. Those are the ones who are legally in the game at any time, except for during intermissions when all team members are bench personnel and there are no players. (4-34-1&2)

Although, following an intermission (or a time-out) the same five players are to start the next quarter, unless a substitution takes place during the intermission (or time-out). (3-3-1a)

Lastly, we know that a player only becomes bench personnel after his substitute becomes a player. (4-34-3)

Therefore, according to those rules, the team still has five players. The problem is simply that only four of them are on the floor and one of them is on the bench--not where he is supposed to be. Per the two Case Book plays, the NFHS rules allow that fifth player to return to the playing floor without penalty, unless the situation follows a time-out or intermission or if he does so in a manner which deceives the opponents.

That fifth player is the only one who is permitted this. Why? Because he has not been substituted and is actually still legally in the game. Other team members would have to properly substitute into the game. Don't forget that substitutes must both report to the scorer and be beckoned in by an official or it is a technical foul (10-3-1&2).

That is the rules process, but the problem in practice would be knowing who that fifth player actually is.

And I agree with all of this. (Not that there is anything to agree with, these are just rules.)


In theory, Ok, but again, once the ball becomes live, that substitute now becomes a player, and I believe this may be too late to penalize. If one of the designated starters does not start a game, and it is realized 10 seconds after the opening tip, it is too late to penalize, therefore one would reasonably assume that this is too late to penalize as well.

And once again I agree, and because of the difficulty in knowing who that 5th player is, I think this would be rarely penalized.

Starting the game is not a substitution situation. It is an improper change of designated starters. You are correct that in that case it would be too late to penalize as the dead ball was made live to start the game.

A team member running off the bench and onto the court during play is different because he is violating the substitution rules and can still be held accountable for those.

This isn't hockey.