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