4 players on the court

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. The case play is penalizing them for returning at DIFFERENT times....note that the penalty didn't come until that player came back. That is what the penalty is for....the late return. If the last player doesn't return, there is no penalty. They have to play without said player until the next stoppage of play.

If it were otherwise, it would be much simpler to say that playing with other than 5 players would be a T if 5 were available. They do say that for 6 players. If they wanted that to be the case for 4, it would have been much easier to say it that way.

All that returned in the OP did so at the same time...thus no penalty.

We are going to have to disagree.
The rule doesn't say what you are writing. It clearly says that it is a technical foul to "fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time." If one guy stays on the bench, then the team has failed to have all players return right at that very moment.
There is no provision requiring the remaining player to return at all in order to invoke a penalty. That just may be when the officials notice the problem.

Look at the language of the ruling in Case Play 10.1.9: "RULING: A technical foul is immediately charged to Team B for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."

The rules book also says that this is to be penalized when it occurs.

Lastly, your "all that returned...did so at the same time" doesn't hold water. ALL means ALL, not some. C'mon man!

[BillyMac]

A Team shall not: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same
time following a time-out or intermission.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A Team shall not: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same
time following a time-out or intermission.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Agree. Add it to the list.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We are going to have to disagree.
The rule doesn't say what you are writing. It clearly says that it is a technical foul to "fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time." If one guy stays on the bench, then the team has failed to have all players return right at that very moment.
There is no provision requiring the remaining player to return at all in order to invoke a penalty. That just may be when the officials notice the problem.

Look at the language of the ruling in Case Play 10.1.9: "RULING: A technical foul is immediately charged to Team B for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."

The rules book also says that this is to be penalized when it occurs.

Lastly, your "all that returned...did so at the same time" doesn't hold water. ALL means ALL, not some. C'mon man!

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.

[paulsonj72]

Actually saw this once in a game I was part of. We had called a timeout and made some substitutions. AFTER the TO the ball was put in play and we only had 4 players on the court. We caught the situation and quickly called another TO and got our 5th player back in the game.(FWIW it made no difference in the game as we won by 21 points)