If live ball penalties can be assessed, regardless of the clock status, then why can't the same be said for dead ball penalties? Ergo, status of the clock is irrelevant.

To me, you have live/dead ball penalties and the clock's status has no affect.

You seem to be focusing on a specific dead ball period (after made basket). What about the others such as just before tip-off, before a throw-in, or before a free throw. When the officials see 5+ players on the court, there is no penalty, they just get rid of (so to speak) the extras. So why not apply the same concept to your dead ball period? Does that not seem logical?

Indeed, it is the only situation in which the ball status goes live-dead-live automatically but to me, it stands to reason to apply how it is handled in the same manner as the other situations.

Love your passion and not even trying to convince you of anything, only offering how I handle it given written words in the rule book. I will definitely throw this at our state interpreter and see what kind of feedback comes.

Participating ...
 

Good post.

When are team members participating? Certainly not during the dead ball period before the live ball of a jump ball or during the dead ball period before a live ball of a designated spot throwin.

NFHS rules, as presently written, don't use live ball/dead ball, or the status of the clock, to determine extra team member rulings (penalties, or send extra man back) but rather base the ruling on "participation", which it doesn't define. Other Forum members want to simply use live ball/dead ball, I just added the status of the clock into the mix for discussion purposes because I believe that team members can be participating during times other than live balls.

Please do. My questions to trainers were just answered with, "Don't let it happen, do a better job of preventing six players from entering, or staying on the court".

Not true. The NFHS defines participating in the Case Book ruling already cited in this thread.

Bench Personnel ...
 

Time expired. Everybody is bench personnel. It said time expired, not ball is dead (even though it was). Two variables. Water muddied.

10.5.3 SITUATION: A5 has just received his/her fifth foul of the game. A5 (a) is erroneously permitted to remain in the game for another two minutes before the scorer realizes the mistake; or (b) leaves the game after the coach is notified of the disqualification. At the intermission between the third and fourth quarter, A5 reports as a substitute and subsequently enters the game. RULING: In (a), as soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed. In (b), A5 will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes live. If detected prior to the ball becoming live, A5 would be directed to the bench and no penalty assessed unless the official deemed it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. If detected after the ball becomes live, it is a technical foul charged directly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box
privileges. The player is immediately removed from the game and Team B is awarded two free-throws and the ball. (2-11-5 Note 2)

Not about extra players. First (note "prior") live ball sets up the penalty, even if the disqualified player is discovered during a subsequent dead ball. Anything prior to first live ball is not penalized, that's all the ruling states. After that it's open season for a penalty, live ball or dead ball. If the disqualified player eventually leaves the game (undiscovered) and becomes bench personnel, then it may be too late to penalize.

If during a dead ball after the ball first becomes live with the disqualified player (coach was informed) on the court (let's say after an out of bounds violation), the disqualified player (we can call him a player, he's one of five) is discovered, are you not going to penalize, or just send him back to the bench?

Doesn't the line "A5 will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes live" solve our issue here?

It definitely goes in my pile of reasons to not penalize during a dead ball.

To answer Billy's last question, indeed, I would not penalize. In the case, the player went 2 minutes and then it was discovered. A DQ'd player (barring deliberate attempt to circumvent rules), participating in a game, should not, IMO, ever be penalized as it was the fault of some game official (referee, umpires, table, scorers, etc.).

Haven't Heard This Interpretation Yet, I Don't Think
 

Yes it does.
My take on it after consideration of all the above discussion:

#1. Before ball becomes live = not "participating"
#2. After ball becomes live = "participating"
#3. During a dead ball period after that = still "participating", therefore meriting a technical foul . . .
. . . because the parameters of "will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes live" have been met if discovered after #2.
Anytime after that, A5, when discovered, is still, without a definition to the contrary anywhere in the books, A5 is still "participating" if out on the court.
That's what I'm thinkin', for now. Though I do respect those who disagree.

This is the part of 10.5.3 which provides a clear definition of what it means to participate in an NFHS contest: "In (b), A5 will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes live. If detected prior to the ball becoming live, A5 would be directed to the bench and no penalty assessed..."

This rule 10-6-3 also needs to be penalized while being violated. Therefore, it must be caught during a live ball.

I agree.

While it may not be fair not to assess the technical foul, it is what it is. Sorry, coach.

Disqualified ...
 

I wouldn't either (penalize the player). The player is never penalized for participating after being disqualified. It's the coach who is penalized with a technical foul. It was the coach who decided to put said player back in the game after he was informed by an official that his player was disqualified (definition of disqualified equals coach informed). It was not an error by the referee, umpires, table, scorers, the police officer in the corner, or the hot single mom who runs the concession stand. If the officials, or table, screwed up (not in this case) and the coach was never informed, then the player was never officially disqualified and, of course, there would be penalty for anybody. In this case, the coach screwed up and gets the penalty, not the disqualified player.

Want to give it another try bucky?

Parameters ...
 

Sounds similar to my post:

I hope it's similar, they're starting to wear me down and I need a "participating" buddy.

Until ...
 

You're extrapolating, (which can sometimes work, but in my opinion, not here). It doesn't say what can happen after that (after the ball becomes live), like when it becomes dead. And it only deals with one player (A5) who just entered the game. It doesn't say if the other four players were participating before the ball became live, or while it was dead. I also wonder why participate is in quotes? Why isn't it just participate, with no quotes?

Dubious ...
 

I went to some grammar web sites and came up with these:

1) It is meant to denote a strange or unusual use of the word.

My favorite:

2) When you want to imply that the quoted word is dubious.

Quotation marks - Grammarist

I won't call it another try, perhaps, just more info. The definition of "disqualified" does not equal the coach being informed. Being "officially disqualified" involves the coach being informed. Can't believe I just split hairs on that one but whateves...

So, if the coach was informed, then it could be considered a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules and a technical foul would be warranted, whether the ball is live or dead.

Disqualified ...
 

I'm not sure what the difference is?

4-14-2: A player is officially disqualified and becomes bench personnel
when the coach is notified by an official.

How does an official "deem" this? Coaches aren't perfect and occasionally make honest mistakes. Good question for another thread.

NFHS created 2 parts so only they would know.


Not sure as all people are different. You as an official have to determine the honesty of the mistake. I am only responding to the case whereby the extra player was DQ and it is a live/dead/live ball. If kid/table/coach were notified, and extra player was discovered on court during a dead ball in the live/dead/live case, it could easily be deemed by an official to be deliberate by the coach. It could be deemed this by process of elimination (IOW, what else could it be?) and, perhaps more importantly, can be used, by rule, as the means to assessing a T during this "strange" dead ball period that has been discussed. An official would not even have to give the reason for the T. Everyone, including the coach (unless the coach had read this thread and was a very experienced official) would understand (or at least think) that the T was for having an extra player on the floor. No one would say a word about not being able to give the T because it is a dead ball. And, that one official who read this thread, would also not be able to question it because he/she would now be familiar with the rule regarding the deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. Let's go one step further and pretend, hypothetically, that there was another official(he/she did not read this thread) on the planet that questioned giving the T during that dead ball period. You could look like a rule God and explain that you deemed that the coach was deliberately circumventing (use those words to accentuate your God-like knowledge) the rules and ergo, the T was allowed during the dead ball.

Can't believe I did it again. Another fine for too many words coming my way. Sheesh.

Maybe I am making this too simple. Wouldn't it be better if the coach or table says there is 6 players to stop count both teams and then blow the whistle and call the T? Why are we blowing our whistle because the coach is counting and then counting and saying coach I cant call the T cuz I decided to count after my whistle rather than before my whistle...

Unsporting ...
 

There's got to be a reason, either unsporting, or disqualified player in the game.

10-4-1: Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as yadah yadah yadah ...

As with other parts of 10.5.3 SITUATION, the NFHS is unclear as to what type of technical foul to give pre-live ball for a coach deliberately attempting to circumvent the rules by sending in a disqualified player.

I'm guessing unsporting.

Stupid NFHS rules editors. Stupid 10.5.3 SITUATION.

Quite Rare ...
 

Absolutely a great, and simple, interpretation, kind of like Occam's razor. But there are some more complex situations, many are quite rare, but they can occur.

Stop obsessing

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

120 posts to get to that?

Idiom Of The Day ...
 

... and that's all she wrote.

How can you tell it's the off-season?
 

When a discussion goes on for 9 PAGES over a 6th team member participating :D:D:D:D:D

Perfect Storm ...
 

Agree.

Its called the off season...

Live Ball Only ...
 

You're right Raymond. Now we finally have it directly from the horse's mouth (below).

From the IAABO Sportorials November/December 2017 issue, article entitled Rules Interpretations and Clarifications from NFHS In-Person Meeting (with Theresia Wynns, NFHS Basketball Rules Editor):

More than five players on the court not observed by officials:
- If Team A has more than five players on the court during a live
ball and the officials do not realize it, should the officials charge
Team A with a technical foul if the scorer notifies officials of the
infraction during the next dead ball period? Answer: No. An
on-court official must observe the excess number of players on
the court during a live ball and a team having more than five
players on the court during a live ball shall be penalized only if
the infraction is discovered while being violated.

An interpretation directly from from Ms. Wynns, the NFHS Grand Poobah, should put this issue to rest. Right?

Yes.

MTD, Sr.

If I can deduce(big word) that there were 6 on floor without taking scorer word for it I will penalize. I do not have to see it while ball is "live." Example, 6 on floor and we are oblivious. Horn sounded. Ball dead(no shot in air) if I see 6 I at that moment I will penalize. I don't think I have to discover it "while ball live." But I have to know personally that there were 6 while ball was live.

I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't it say it has to be discovered while the ball is live? Not if you have definite knowledge.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

This is called not following the rules and making up your own. :(

It says team technical for having more than 5 players participating simultaneously. Down further, "penalized if discovered while being violated." The interpretation billy put up said an official had to observe while the ball is live.

Hopefully, it never happens to any of us but...say you have 6 players on the court for one team and the horn sounds because the officials are clueless. Officials kill the play (ball becomes dead) officials then see 6 on the court. They know nobody ran onto the floor after the ball was dead....and they're 6 players from one team still out there. You can figure out 6 participated simultaneously without taking anybody's word for it because.... they are still there. I would penalize.

Again, hope it never happens. Just quibbling with Billy's interpretation. Moral- count players

I suppose it might be but in this limited situation when 6 are still standing there id probably still penalize. I just wont let it happen...so i dont have to...

I think BigCat is seeing the intention of the rule, but the wording is bad and can be interpreted how BillyMac is saying.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

When E. F. Hutton Talks, People Listen ...
 

Whoa. Hold onto your horses cowboys. BillyMac isn't saying anything. Theresia Wynns, the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor, who has oodles of gravitas, is the one doing the talking.

Jinx ???
 

We can only hope.

I'm stretching it in this limited circumstance... so just dont let it happen....

For Whom The Bell Tolls (Ernest Hemingway) ...
 

While the rule itself may not be as clear as we'd like it (definition of participate), Ms. Wynns interpretation (on court official must observe excess number of players on the court, during a live ball, penalized only if discovered while being violated) seems to be as clear as a bell. And I know not of a higher NFHS interpretative authority.

Yeah, you're right. I suppose if i let 6 players on the court and i cant figure it out without the scorer/timer getting me to stop the game and telling me.....then i probably deserve what happens next.... tell the opposing coach "i see 6 now...but i didnt then...so i cant penalize...". :) just dont let it happen..

Theresia Wynns, NFHS Basketball Rules Editor ...
 

And according to Theresia Wynns, NFHS Basketball Rules Editor, you would be 100% wrong.

And according to Theresia Wynns, NFHS Basketball Rules Editor, you would be 100% correct.

I acknowledged this in my previous post...but thx for pointing it out again..:)

110% Correct ???
 

Nothing wrong with being 100% correct. Embrace it.

I hope that she puts the (wrong*, imo) interp someplace a little more official than "an interview in the IAABO sportorial"

* -- wrong, because a player can participate while the ball is dead after a made basket. Maybe it should be "while the ball is live or while the clock is (properly) running"

This is about as bad as her sending an email response to a person and not addressing the issue that is being actually asked. Then putting no such interpretation out to back up that statement.

Peace

Be Careful What You Ask For, You May Get It ...
 

That was my opinion way back at the beginning of this thread. At least we've got a NFHS interpretation, from no less than the head honcho, to put some form of closure to this debate. Some of us may not like the interpretation, but at least we have one.

No. She's wrong. You say stupid nfhs in so many places and want to accept this. Made basket, ball dead clock running.. player is participating. I'm guessing she was asked a question about 6 on floor, then one sneaks off, ball becomes dead with officials being clueless. Scorer tells them. Can't penalize there. She made a generalized statement which was too broad.

And Nevada rationalized it earlier citing the provision that a player who enters doesn't participate until ball becomes live. That is true. But once it does that player is participating even when made basket/ball dead. He isn't a participant and then cease to be every dead ball. Equally wrong.

Opinions ...
 

I do not want to accept this (I lead the charge to expand the definition of participate), but until a new interpretation comes from the NFHS, it's the only choice I have, other than offer my own opinion, or to listen to opinions of other officials, but in both cases they're just opinions, opinions based on ambiguous rules, based on a nonexistent definition of participate.

Dead Ball Period ...
 

So there would be a difference between the charging of the technical foul during the dead ball period immediately following the scoring of a successful field goal, and the dead ball period immediately following the scoring of a successful free throw?

Good point.

How about (and with just as little thought as before) "A player does not begin to participate until the ball is live. A player continues to participate until earliest of: (a) the ball becomes live after the player leaves the court (is replaced or sits on the bench), or (b) or the period ends and multiple players from either team have entered or left the court, or (c) a granted time out is reported to the table and the time out timer has (or should have) begun."

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Finish it anyway you want. Anything is better the definition of participating that we now have, which is nothing, zero, diddly squat, goose egg, zip, zilch, zippo, nill, naught ...

On a side note, some states have mercy rules whereby the clock is properly running during a dead ball.:eek: