6 on the Court -- unnoticed...

[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.