6 on the Court -- unnoticed...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by scanfocustarget

A.R. 251 NCAA Men's

Under this Case Book adjudication, it does not follow that you can only penalize the "6 players on court" infraction while the ball is live.

I don't have access to PDF so I cannot copy/paste the entire play (it's a bit long to type), but please look this adjudication up.

Also, per the notes on this case play:

".... The penalty of Rule 10-2.6 applies only when the sixth player participates when the ball is live. There is no time limit within which the officials have to recognize and penalize the infraction. However, the officials must see the violation occur or have personal knowledge that it did occur in order to penalize this infraction. A monitor may not be used to obtain such knowledge."

Nice that the NCAA clearly states in the case play that participation is when the ball is live. Of course, the NFHS does the same thing, but that isn't good enough for BillyMac. He wants it defined within the rules book.

Additionally, our point of contention in this thread involves when this action may be penalized under NFHS rules. The NFHS specifies that it must be while being violated. The NCAA rule is obviously different, and perhaps better, in that it puts no time limit upon the officials to recognize the infraction. The NFHS rule isn't written that way.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nice that the NCAA clearly states in the case play that participation is when the ball is live.

I liked it also until I noticed the "exception":

"However, the officials must ... have personal knowledge that it did occur in order to penalize this infraction".

To me, this means that even though the ball may now be dead, if the officials were certain that there were six playing when the ball was live immediately preceding the dead ball, they can still penalize.

Again, I'm not an NCAA official, and it still doesn't help us with a NFHS interpretation.

[scanfocustarget]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nice that the NCAA clearly states in the case play that participation is when the ball is live. Of course, the NFHS does the same thing, but that isn't good enough for BillyMac. He wants it defined within the rules book.

Additionally, our point of contention in this thread involves when this action may be penalized under NFHS rules. The NFHS specifies that it must be while being violated. The NCAA rule is obviously different, and perhaps better, in that it puts no time limit upon the officials to recognize the infraction. The NFHS rule isn't written that way.

Ah, I see. Got you. Good stuff in here.

From a textual standpoint, I can see the distinction from NCAA and NFHS interpretation of the rule. But I think when you look too deep into the rules you can become a slave to them. I do not think the NFHS rule is meant to suggest that if 6 guys are on the court and the ball goes out of bounds, we cannot penalize the 6 guys on the court during that dead ball. That would be a nonsensical interpretation, in my opinion - and one with little (if any) rationale behind it.

I think the NCAA rules lend themselves to the NFHS rules where the rules/case book are silent on certain issues and there is no explicitly marked distinction.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by scanfocustarget

I do not think the NFHS rule is meant to suggest that if 6 guys are on the court and the ball goes out of bounds, we cannot penalize the 6 guys on the court during that dead ball.

Agree. But I would feel better if the NFHS defined participating.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. But I would feel better if the NFHS defined participating.

Really???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Really???

I respect Nevadaref's opinion. If he feels strongly that the rules never allow officials to penalize six team members "playing" during dead balls (all dead balls), then there must be some grain of truth to that, and it's definitely worth exploring and debating. I disagree with him, but I don't have enough evidence to fully back up my claim that officials may penalize six team members "playing" during some dead balls. I believe that his evidence is on shaky ground, just like mine is.

"Some" dead ball situations:

Multiple substitutions. All substitutes report and are legally beckoned. Extra team member is confused and stays on court, unnoticed by everybody. Ball put into play. Quick foul occurs. No substitutions. One and one free throws awarded. First free throw made. No substitutions. Extra team member discovered by officials (who don't know when the extra team member entered) during dead ball, clock stopped, after first free throw made while the ball is in the hands of the lead official.

The last Team A free throw attempt is successful. The clock hasn't started. Six team members on Team A are setting up a full court press. Officials become aware of the extra player before the ball is at the disposal of Team B for a run-the-endline throwin. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped.

Team A scores a field goal. Six team members on Team A are setting up a full court press. Officials become aware of the extra player before the ball is at the disposal of Team B for a run-the-endline throwin. The ball is dead, and the clock is running.

NFHS 10-1-6: A team shall not: Have more than five team members participating simultaneously. If discovered while being violated.

"Participating"?

Are six team members moving into positions to set up a full court press "participating"?

Are six team members, many of whom have just tried to get a rebound during the first one and one attempt that was successful, and whom have now returned to their positions to await a second free throw attempt, "participating"?

Stupid NFHS rules editors.

[bucky]

Perhaps it was mentioned but if not:

The NFHS defines players and one article indicates "If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live."

I would not argue that "participating" and "playing" are different.

In searching the rule book for occurrences of "participat" (no "e" to get all words containing the root), all are regarding live ball play.

From all this, one might infer that the definition of participating involves only live ball play.

Stupid NFHS rules editors.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... one might infer that the definition of participating involves only live ball play.

Which is precisely the argument that Nevadaref makes, and it's a pretty good argument.

It's too bad that the NFHS forces us to use words like "one" (meaning an individual official), and "might", and "infer", for something that can, if they wanted to, be made perfectly clear in Rule 4, Rule 10, or in a casebook play.

Originally Posted by bucky

"If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live."

This is not a definition of participant, but rather is simply telling us that if a substitute doesn't report and/or be beckoned, that when the ball becomes live it's too late to penalize (he's now a legal player).

I need a reference to the opposite, a live ball that becomes dead.

In terms of live ball/dead ball, I'm sure that all of us would not penalize anybody if, after multiple substitutions, with the ball still dead, we realize that there are six team members on the court before we make the ball live. All of us would simply wait until there were only five team members on the court, again, with no penalty.

This is the situation that I'm hanging my hat on:

Team A scores a field goal. Six team members on Team A are setting up a full court press. Officials become aware of the extra player before the ball is at the disposal of Team B for a run-the-endline throwin. The ball is dead, and the clock is running. (NFHS 10-1-6: A team shall not: Have more than five team members participating simultaneously. If discovered while being violated.) Are six team members moving into positions to set up a full court press "participating", especially while the clock is running?

I believe so, and I'm sounding my whistle to charge a team technical foul for more than five team members participating.

Would other Forum members do the same in a real game situation, especially when one of the head coaches is yelling "They have six players on the court, that's a technical foul"?

Are we really going to sound our whistle to stop play, count the team members on the court at the time, meet with our partner to discuss, and inform the coach that we can't charge a technical foul because the ball is dead, and then politely ask the opposing coach to please remove one of his extra players without penalty? Are we all really going to do that?

In my example above, which may really happen if you officiate long enough, there's no doubt in my real game mind that six team members are playing and participating, especially since the clock is running, even though the ball is dead, so I'm sounding my whistle and charging a team technical foul while the ball is dead (and the clock is running) immediately after a goal. Six team members are moving into positions to set up a full court press while the clock is running, that's playing basketball, and that's participating. Come hell or high water, that's what I'm doing in my game (and if I discover the extra team member before the coach, I'm not waiting for the coach to start yelling about it).

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If worse comes to worst, I'm going with the purpose and intent clause, but I hope that I don't have to take that tool out of my official's tool belt, and that 10-1-6 alone will handle the situation.

Originally Posted by bucky

Stupid NFHS rules editors.

Hey, that's my line.

Stupid NFHS rules editors. © 2017 BillyMac