Way outside my element here, but if this bothers you couldn't you split the difference a little more effectively then Nevada suggests with this: don't blow your whistle for six men on the court and ignore the coach. As soon as the ball becomes live, call a technical. If as Nevada claims (with your modifications), having six players on the court in a dead ball is not illegal, then why would you whistle it dead?

He is not "participating," but he is on the court illegally.

What Did I Have For Breakfast This Morning ???
 

My brain doesn't work that quickly (anymore). Plus that wouldn't be a good answer on a written exam.

Participate Equals Live Ball ???
 

I can't penalize for six being on the court illegally, six have to be participating for me to charge the team technical. And some esteemed Forum members say that participate equals live ball, which may be correct, but it may also not be correct, especially with the clock running.

Stupid NFHS rules editors.

Which are you more concerned with, a possible question on some future exam or an actual situation that will have to be adjudicated on the court.

Just listened to an NBA ref last night and he says too many officials are concerned about the exact rule book answer instead of making good decisions to handle particular situations. This is now what you have turned this into. You're more concerned about an exam question that you may never come across as opposed to learning ways to get this played adjudicated.

Since you say "participating" is not clearly defined in the rule book, then use a common sense definition and adjudicate accordingly. No coach is going to know the exact verbiage of this rule, so any intelligent application will pass muster. (I almost typed "mustard", I'm sure Adam or Camron would have been all over me....LOL).

My personal definition for "participating" as a 6th man would be during a live ball and/or when the clock is legally running. So if a basket is made and you notice 6 players on the court, bang the T for participating because the clock is still legally running.

If I don't notice until after a time-out is granted, then that would be too late.

This thread is still going on????

They're Not Mutually Exclusive ...
 

If the actual (but quite rare) situation ever occurred on the court, I hope that I would interpret it the correct way, practically, and by the rulebook (they're not necessarily mutually exclusive).

More importantly, in my capacity as an observer and a trainer, I want to be able to set a good example for young officials, doing things correctly, practically, and by the book. If I observe them doing something that I think is wrong, or for that matter, right, I would like my compliments, or criticism, of what that they did on the court, to be correct, both practically, and by the rules.

This is probably due to the teacher in me. I'm a thirty-plus year retired middle school science teacher. I never wanted to teach my students something that was even slightly wrong, I always attempted to keep as up to date as possible on scientific ideas, which often changed over my thirty-plus year career. I would never give my students ambiguous test questions, or test questions with ambiguous answers, or an answer that I couldn't defend 100%.

I treat my role as an observer and a trainer of young officials the same as I treated my role as a teacher, quite seriously.

Practical Advice ...
 

Agree (although some esteemed Forum members may disagree, and I'm not using the word "esteemed" in a sarcastic, or patronizing way, some of the Forum members who have commented in this thread have enough gravitas (experience, knowledge, intelligence) as to require that we pay attention to what they have to say, and respect their opinion, even when others, including me, may disagree with them).

look who's involved

It takes two, however.

Stupid NFHS Rules Editor, Stupid BillyMac ...
 

A combination of my stubborn search for the truth, and the unclear direction that the NFHS gives us regarding the definition of participation in what should (or could) be a very simple rule to interpret. Add the fact that it's the offseason an we have a perfect storm for a long thread, with as many questions as answers.

No Billy, you have stretched this past its limits. What exactly do you want from us, we are not the NFHS? You have been given choices on how to handle this play, when you are on the court you are going to have to make a decision and you can't take 5 minutes of internal debate to choose one.

The Forum Isn't The NFHS ...
 

It was worth it for me. I now feel that I can confidently penalize a team for participating with more than five team members if I discover it during a live ball (which we all already knew at the start of this thread), or during a dead ball if the clock is running.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread.

I still have a few more questions, but like Raymond said, the Forum isn't the NFHS.

Stupid NFHS rules editors.

Civility Of Our Discourse ...
 

I was actually quite surprised that the moderators didn't close and lock this thread a long time ago. Could it have anything to do with the professional manner and civility of our discourse?

Wait. I almost forgot. Stupid NFHS rules editors