6 on the Court -- unnoticed...

[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

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Agree.

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

Agree.

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?

Sure, if it actually happened. It is the fault, most likely, of the crew. If the crew did not count correctly then it is time to admit it. Sure, it will be a bad situation but it also enforces how important it is to count before putting the ball in play.

Continuing under these game circumstances, what it the team that has the endline throwin delays the throwin because there are six defenders (brought to their attention by their yelling coach) and nobody picks up the basketball (while the ball is technically at their disposal) for a throwin? Are we going to penalize that team with a five second throwin violation? Are we? Really? Are we about to discover just how ballistic a coach can go before he's escorted out of the gymnasium by a police officer?

I do not like "What if" situations as they can become slippery slope material. Anyway...

You are suggesting that the ball is scored and no one (coach) previously mentioned/saw the 6 players. You are suggesting that, before the ball becomes live the coach begins yelling and that his players stop playing because of it. I do not believe that situation to be physically possible given that short amount of time. Let's use 1 second as the timeframe for a ball to be at the disposal for an inbounding team. I do not feel that the coach could yell about the 6 players and that the inbounder would process his yelling and stop play. Kids/people are not that alert. They would not even hear the coach until several yells had been belched, lol. Anyway.... Seems as if you answered your own situation. If ball was at disposal, consider it a live ball situation and call the T against the offending team.

Also, inquire with table to see if 6 were on court during last live ball situation. Wouldn't that be considered "while being violated"? Wouldn't common sense also allow for application of lag time? Say, official sees 6 players as shot is in air. Ball goes through net and ball is dead but official is blowing his whistle now. If it is that close then why not just apply lag time to adjudication/explanation? Who wouldn't buy that?

Yes, there is a technical issue to discuss with all this but it seems like a moot point.

Hey, that's my line.

It is a good line. I was giving you props for using it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

If ball was at disposal, consider it a live ball situation and call the T against the offending team.

Wow. Good point. And I thought that I had my previous post all thought out.

So let's go back to where the ball is not yet at the disposal, and the coach starts screaming "They've got six players, isn't that 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? Or will we be patient enough to hold our whistle until the ball becomes live (at disposal) and then charge the team with a technical? Or will we just sound our whistle and charge the team technical foul during the dead ball (clock running)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

It is the fault, most likely, of the crew. If the crew did not count correctly then it is time to admit it. Sure, it will be a bad situation but it also enforces how important it is to count before putting the ball in play.

Agree 100%. This still doesn't stop the overzealous kid, after the coach tells him to substitute in for somebody, from joining his five teammates (like a line change in hockey), while the officials are in positions with their backs to this event, and the table, and both coaches, are concentrating on the ten players and officials already on the court (nobody knows who entered illegally, or when he entered illegally).

Work enough middle school games and "stuff" happens. All of a sudden six team members are playing in the game, as if the extra player fell from the rafters.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. This still doesn't stop the overzealous kid, after the coach tells him to substitute in for somebody, from joining his five teammates (like a line change in hockey), while the officials are in positions with their backs to this event, and the table, and both coaches, are concentrating on the ten players and officials already on the court (nobody knows who entered illegally, or when he entered illegally).

Work enough middle school games and "stuff" happens. All of a sudden six team members are playing in the game, as if the extra player fell from the rafters.

All 3 officials have their backs to the bench missing illegal subs, but are sharp enough to recognize in the split second between a made basket and disposal that there are 6 men on the court?

Are you going to keep on coming up with scenarios to satisfy your fixation?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

All 3 officials have their backs to the bench missing illegal subs, but are sharp enough to recognize in the split second between a made basket and disposal that there are 6 men on the court?

"Stuff" happens, especially in middle school games in "Two Person Connecticut".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

All 3 officials have their backs to the bench missing illegal subs, but are sharp enough to recognize in the split second between a made basket and disposal that there are 6 men on the court?

A head coach will certainly be glad to lend the officials a hand here. It's pretty hard to ignore a screaming coach.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's pretty hard to ignore a screaming coach.

That's why I always carried a roll of duct tape in my bag.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow. Good point. And I thought that I had my previous post all thought out.

Thanks for reading my entire post, even finding errors in it, and commenting on the post.

Originally Posted by bucky

It is a good line. I was giving you props for using it.

I'm so thankful that I won't have my people get in touch with your people over a minor copyright infringement.

Stupid NFHS rules editors. © 2017 BillyMac

Just don't let it happen again. I'm represented by the law office of Padgett and Padgett (they're both the same person, he must do it for tax purposes), a subsidiary of law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... inquire with table to see if 6 were on court during last live ball situation. Wouldn't that be considered "while being violated"?

Can officials accept the help of the table to penalize this rule, or do they have to actually observe the six team members on the court with their own eyes?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

10.2.2 SITUATION: With Team A leading 51 to 50, a held ball is called. A6 *properly reports and enters the game. Time is then called by Team A. The clock shows two seconds remaining in the game. After play is resumed by a throw-in, the officials: (a) recognize that A has six players competing, but cannot get the clock stopped; or (b) do not notice Team A has six players on the court. Following the throw-in, time expires. Team B now reports to the officials that Team A had six players on the court.RULING: In (a), since one of the officials had knowledge that Team A had six players participating simultaneously and this was detected prior to time expiring, a technical foul is assessed against Team A. In (b), since it was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after time had expired, it is too late to assess any penalty.

It appears that the officials have to "recognize" the extra player, with no help from the table, or was the ruling made because time had expired (all team members are bench personnel)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... official sees 6 players as shot is in air. Ball goes through net and ball is dead but official is blowing his whistle now.

Another interesting scenario. Too late to penalize because the ball is dead?

https://youtu.be/AjplZXgodhs

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Another interesting scenario. Too late to penalize because the ball is dead?

https://youtu.be/AjplZXgodhs

If the shot is in the air, the ball is live and 6 players are recognized. Geesh.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If the shot is in the air, the ball is live and 6 players are recognized.

Good point. Thanks. Note my question mark after the word "dead".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.



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.



Hey, that's my line.

Stupid NFHS rules editors. © 2017 BillyMac

Since the ball is dead, the team members are not participating.
This is the same as moving into position prior to the jumpball. Once the ball becomes live on the throw-in or the jumpball, then they are participating.
What I don't like about the situation following a made goal is that the clock is running. I'll admit that this dead ball isn't like others because of that. However, I have advocated already in this thread that there exists a rules book solution which provides justice. Issue a substitute technical foul instead of a team technical foul. The substitute tech does not require observation during a live ball. It merely needs the failure of a sub to report or to be beckoned onto the court.
If BillyMac would utilize that rule, he could still penalize the offending team AND be correct within the rules book.