4 players on the court

[Ump K]

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?

[deecee]

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.

[BillyMac]

10.3.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple
substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains
there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. 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 directly onto the court and catches
up with the play. RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5’s return to
the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage
on the court.

10.1.9 SITUATION: Following a charged time-out Team B is still with their
coach on the sideline when the official sounds the whistle to indicate play will
resume. Four players of B return to the court just in time to play defense as A1
attempts an unsuccessful three-pointer. B1 rebounds and throws a long pass to
B5 who enters the court just in time to catch the pass. RULING: A technical foul
is immed iately 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. While it is
true the entire team may be off the court while the procedure is being used, once
a team responds, all players must enter the court at approximately the same time.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.3.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple
substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains
there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. 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 directly onto the court and catches
up with the play. RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5’s return to
the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage
on the court.

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?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by frezer11

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.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

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?

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.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[diehardmason]

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