4 players on the court
 

Situation;
After a time out due to some mis-understanding Team "A" has only 4 players playing. Referees didn't detect this and the ball is in play. When the referees detect that team "A" has 4 players on the court during play, what should they do? This has been posted on our organization facebook page and hasn't been resolved. Some say to call a "T" on Team "A" immediately (NFHS rule 10.1.9). One of our state clinicians/rules interpreter says don't call a "T", "play-on". What would you do?

I would only asses a T if I thought they were trying to be tricky or deceiving. 99% of the time I'm not T'ing them, nor am I T'ing them for when the 5th player runs on the court. Then again I haven't dealt with this type of issue since the last time it happened 10 years ago and I felt so stupid for such a mistake I make it a priority to NEVER let this happen and put me in an awkward position.

Citations ...
 

Since the situation occurred following a time-out a technical foul is warranted despite a little bit of game action taking place before the infraction was noticed.
It would be nice if your state clinician could read the NFHS Case Book.

State clinician was right. You play on until the player returns or there is a whistle to create an opportunity for the player to return.

According the case, the T occurs when the absent player actually returns during the live ball. It is not for not returning. If that were not the case, the case play wouldn't need to include the element where the 5th player returns before the T is called. The T is called when the 5th player returns.

You are reading more into the Case play. Look at the plain text of the rule. 10-2-5: "Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission." The team certainly didn't have ALL players come out. That's a penalty right there. The case play is merely an example of that occurring. I read it as the officials noticed the problem when the fifth came off the bench to catch the long pass. The officials need to notice it before they can penalize it. You don't just play on knowing that there is a problem.

Are we ignoring the first case play BillyMac posted? The one where you DON'T give a technical foul?

The two case plays he posted make it sound like you only give a technical if the player's return was deceitful or gave the team some sort of advantage.

No, I'm advocating using the one which applies to the situation at hand.
One Case play reads, "After a lengthy substitution process..." while the other begins "Following a time-out..."

Now which situation did the OP present? ;)

And in the OP the 5th player did not give her team any sort of advantage by running in to catch a long pass after a rebound. In fact, in the OP, the 5th player never even returned to play. I don't understand how you can say the second case play fits the OP, but not the first. I mean, there are implications in both.

The case plays, and pretty much all rules, seem to be about a team gaining an unfair advantage. If no advantage is gained I don't see the point of the technical foul. You're penalizing a team for being at a disadvantage (which, yes, was there fault).

I agree with Nevada on this (the third time in less than a month we have taken the same position).

BUT! I do believe that Camron, Nevada, and Billy will agree with me on this point: The game officials should not ever let the game resume with either or both teams having five players on the court. That is Basketball Officiating 101. Count the players and them count them again even if it means taking your shoes and socks off to count the players.

MTD, Sr.

I don't mean to say anybody is wrong. I just want to make sure I do the right thing, and it feels wrong to give a team a technical foul when they put themselves at a disadvantage by having only four players on the court.

Hey -- S*** happens. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for it in the book.

I have long thought that the rule should be "play with 6 -- immediate T. Play with 4 -- keep playing until the next opportunity to substitute."

I might even allow a "special substitution" period immediately after the other team scores.

And Nobody Complains ...
 

How about like a line change in hockey? Substitution with a live ball and running clock. We sometimes allow this with a running clock in Special Olympics Unified Games. With several games scheduled in a short period of time at a site, it saves some time.

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!

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.

My feeling is...

Always count.

If you dont and 5 comes on and gains an advantage its a T.
If he comes on and doesnt gain an advantage play on and I tell the coach it was my fault we started without the player.

Thats what common sense tells me.. and it feels simple to remember..

Not that I would ever let it happen.. I am too OCD for that.

And at least for me, this whole conversation is pretty much a hypothetical, because you're right, you should always count to be sure.

The situation setup in the case play isn't one in which you can count. It is one in which the team doesn't come out of the timeout and you put the ball in play. In such a case, you have nothing to count until after the ball is in play.

Touche. I meant the lengthy substitution case, but I forgot that there are two cases being discussed in this thread.

With respect to using 10.1.9, that is a case where the Coach is holding the team causing a delay of game situation. Another rule to consider is SECTION 5 RESUMPTION-OF-PLAY PROCEDURE, THROW-INS
ART. 1 . . . When a team does not make a thrower available, after a time-out (as in 7-4-4) or the
intermission between any quarter (as in 6-2-3), the resumption-of-play procedure is used to
prevent delay. The administering official will sound the whistle to indicate play will resume. In
each situation:
a. The ball shall be put in play if Team A is ready or it shall be placed on the floor.
b. The throw-in count shall begin and if a violation occurs, the procedure will be repeated
for Team B.
c. Following a violation by one team only, if that team continues to delay when authorized to
make a throw-in, it is a technical foul.
d. Following a violation by both teams, any further delay by either team is a technical foul.

Effectively this negates how 10.1.9 is to be administered.

IMHO, the delay return of a player (who is not deceiving) is a human mistake that shouldn't be penalized. Think about it, Coach has sent A6 to report to sub for A1 and then calls a TO. During the TO, Coach tells A6 not to go in but A1 didn't understand that they were to return. Why is a T needed for no advantage gained especially if Rule 7.5 lets us play without 5 players and it is not a T.

4 Players Following Timeout = Team Technical
 

Yes, I'm "digging up bones" on this one, this 2017 thread regarding a team caught playing with only four players following a timeout. Reason is, it happened last night and the situation was penalized with a team technical foul.
Without having remembered this thread, after reviewing it I seem to be in the camp represented by Nevada on this one, which concurs with our ruling last night. What I'm wondering is why no one in this thread mentioned the phraseology of the 2007,08 NFHS Intepretation which, in seemingly parallel fashion to the two casebook references involved, justifies the issuance of a technical immediately upon discovery that only four players are on the court following a timeout. That interpretation is pasted below.
Anybody interested in helping me understand this issue more reliably?

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return, and he/she sprints onto the court and catches up with play. RULING: In (a), the officials shall stop play and assess a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out. The technical foul counts toward the team-foul count. In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court. COMMENT: Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage, teams are expected to return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out. The officials should have also followed the prescribed mechanics and counted the number of players on the court, ensuring each team has the legal number of players. (10-1-9; 10-3-3)

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)

Nothing has changed, and I don't think the 2007-08 Interp adds anything that hasn't been discussed.

1) there's a difference between "following a TO" and "following a substitution". We all (I think) agree.

2) There *might* be a difference between "immediate T" (Nevada) and "T when the player returns" (Camron) in the "following a TO" scenario.

Not to throw another wrench in but what if coach Norman Dale's it:

His team is on the floor.

If he doesn't send anyone on the floor we are good right?

Then what is the procedure for subbing a player in later to get back up to 5?