6 on the Court -- unnoticed...
 

NFHS

Blue scores and calls timeout.

Blue comes back onto the court with 6 player. No one notices. Ball is inbounded, Blue steals and scores. White calls time out. Three White coaches come screaming out at the referees that Blue had 6 players.

Is the basket erased?

Can the officials rely on anyone besides themselves to decide there really were 6 on the court?

Can it still be penalized if not noticed by the officials until after the TO is granted?

Too late. Must be discovered while the 6th player is participating.

No, No, and No.

Once the TO is granted, the offending act in question is no longer occurring.

Thanks all, that's what I thought -- but I'm biased as my son was playing.

In case anyone is interested in where the question came from, this was in the final minute of a 2 pt game in a tournament elimination bracket. The basket (which was erased) would have tied the game. (I don't know who they relied on to decide that there were 6 on the floor -- it might have been the scorer, it might have been the tournament official who came onto the floor. Or perhaps they saw that there were 6 walking off the court after the TO.)

While I thought that was the technical answer, it's hard to complain too much about the ultimate fairness, as my son's team did have 6 on the floor, and its hard to argue the steal was not aided by the extra player.

Unfortunate all around. It was handled incorrectly after the fact AND it was 100% preventable by the officials...counting the bodies on the floor every inbound is pretty much Officiating 101.

I agree it is preventable by the officials, but it is also preventable by the teams. Often this happens when teams are confused and think something has happen or did not happen and they come onto the floor at the time we have already done our job. So yes, we need to take our times, but the teams are to blame if they do not have the right number of players on the court. It occasionally happens at all levels for that reason.

Peace

Correct response from Camron. The wording used in the penalty section of the rule is "penalized if discovered while being violated." That means the officials notice it while the ball is live.

Additionally, here is the Case Book play supporting that. Note that after time expires it is too late to penalize this not because the game is over, but because the ball has become dead.

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.

Even if they noticed the 6 players on the court before any time-out was granted, you still cannot erase the basket unless they are playing under NBA rules.

More Than Five ???
 

Here is the rule that it’s based on: NFHS 10-1-6: A team shall not: Have more than five team members participating simultaneously. If discovered while being violated.

Here are some situations:

A) Head coach of Team B requests, and is granted, a timeout, at which point he immediately complains to the officials that Team A has six team members participating. The sole purpose of his timeout is to call attention to the officials that Team A has six team members participating. Officials, who have been unaware that six team members have been participating up until that point, count six Team A members on the court before they head into their timeout huddle. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call? (Please note that this is not during an intermission, like the caseplay, but is during a timeout.)

B) Team B head coach yells to nearest official that there are six Team A players participating. Official sounds whistle to stop the action to count the players and discovers that there are six Team A team members on the court during this dead ball, clock stopped, situation. What's the call?

C) Team A has six team members participating, which goes unobserved by the officials. Official calls a travel violation on Team A. There are no substitutions after the whistle. Before administering the throw in, officials observe that Team A has six team members participating. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call?

D) Team A has six players on the court. Officials are unaware of this infraction. Team A has been awarded two free throws. The first free throw is missed. No substitutions are made. Before bouncing the ball to the free thrower for his second free throw, the officials realize that Team A has six players on the court. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call?

E) 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. What’s the call?

F) Team A has six players on the court. Officials are unaware of this infraction. Team A has been awarded two free throws. The first free throw is missed. No substitutions are made. After bouncing the ball to the free thrower, and with the ball at the free thrower's disposal for his second free throw, the officials realize that Team A has six players on the court. The ball is live, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call?

G) 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. What’s the call?

What does participating mean?

The bold/underlined text above is what I'm having a struggle with. It's not real clear that the conclusions stated can be supported by either logic or reason or common sense or the rule or casebook. Not trying to be obstinate, just trying to understand. Any help?

I've been searching for some solid documentation that verifies that "participating" only applies when the ball is live. As in, a team cannot be penalized unless the six players on the court was discovered only while the ball is live. If discovered while the ball is dead, there's no penalty.

To press that interpretation into all the rules where "participation" is mentioned seems to stretch the rule beyond it's intent. 10-4-1, for instance. Or 3-1-1 NOTE, or 4-14-1, or 10-1-1, or 10-3-1. All of those penalties would surely be enforced if discovered being done by a player on the court during a dead ball after any period of live ball action, it seems. Right?

There was an old casebook citation, 10.5.3, which gives credence to "no penalty UNTIL the ball becomes live", but it leaves room for issuing a penalty during a dead ball after that point, it seems:

10.5.3 SITUATION: A5 has just received his/her fifth foul of the game. A5 (a) is erroneously permitted to remain in the game for
another two minutes before the scorer realizes the mistake; or (b) leaves the game after the coach is notified of the
disqualification. At the intermission between the third and fourth quarter, A5 reports as a substitute and subsequently enters the
game. RULING: In (a), as soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed. 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 unless the official deemed it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. If detected
after the ball becomes live, it is a technical foul charged directly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box
privileges. The player is immediately removed from the game and Team B is awarded two free-throws and the ball. (2-11-5 Note
2)

Just saw a similar thread from several years ago that helped clarify for me somewhat. There Billy contributed with this:
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post878664
But it still didn't equate "discovered while being violated" with "while ball is live." I guess I'm still hung up on that, unless something else was meant by that statement previously posted in this current thread.

Find the rule which states when a substitute becomes a player IF THE ENTRY ISN'T LEGAL. It states when the ball becomes live. That is when the team member participates.

Additionally, there is the situation in which a team member with an illegal jersey (or not listed on the team roster) reports to the scorer as a substitute. If the scorer informs the officials of the problem at the time of the attempted entry, then the coach has the ability to withdraw the team member and avoid the penalty. This scenario was detailed in the NFHS Simplified & Illustrated book with the caption which read something like, "Number X won't participate."

"If the entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live." I get that.
If, however, that entry were a sixth player and it was discovered after the next whistle?

Then it is too late to penalize the infraction, even though you know that it happened.
Keep this simple. A team member participates by becoming a player. The definition of a player is in the book along with how a team member becomes a player as well as ceases to be a player.
The six team members participating is a little cloudy because the extra member isn't a legal player, but is out on the floor when only players are permitted. That's actually the infraction and why we can't penalize when the ball isn't live such as during a lengthy susbstitution process with multiple members entering and exiting. We need a time when only players are allowed in order to penalize a non-player being on the court.
Certainly, there need to be clear demarcation points at which play starts and ends as well as for when it is too late to penalize things which happen yet were missed by the officials during the game. For participation, the NFHS has selected when the ball becomes live and dead as those points. Similar to correctable errors.
What you seem concerned about is the timing and want to penalize when the team members are still on the floor during the immediately ensuing dead ball period. It seems unfair to you as this point in time is so close to when the infraction occurred. So take it to the extreme. What about missing this during the final seconds of the second quarter and having it brought to your attention just prior to the jumpball for the first extra period? You obviously can't go back and you feel comfortable about that. Why? You know inherently there is a point at which it becomes too late, but you are just fuzzy as to when exactly that is.
For the NFHS, it is when the ball ceases being live. Now you know and need to make the mental shift to accept it.
That can be tough, but as I mentioned above, this is no different from the timeline for correctable errors. Once you pass the point of no return, it's over and you're done with it. It doesn't matter how soon after the deadline you catch the error or how egregious it was. Now apply the same mentality to six on the floor.

Citation Please ...
 

I would love it if that was the case, but can you please cite a specific rule, or casebook play (other than the old casebook citation, 10.5.3)?

I could cite several examples of play situations and their rulings, such as when the game begins, when a quarter begins, when a quarter ends, when a team may first utilize a time-out, etc. However, the individual situations aren't what's instructive. We are seeking the guiding principle for all such cases. So we need to inquire what they all have in common. The principle is that game play occurs during a live ball and has been halted when the ball is dead. You must understand this basic premise, first and foremost. After that everything else falls into place.

There is a slight caveat for the brief dead-ball period which occurs following a made goal. One could contend that game play is occurring during this timeframe or one could argue that players are merely positioning themselves for the coming start of game play with the ensuing throw-in. The rule seems to be a hold-over from the days when a jumpball was conducted following each made goal. It could be changed with minimal impact upon the overall rules.

For examples, ask yourself what to do if a team sends six out for the opening jump? When do personal fouls occur? When may personal fouls not occur ? (Caveat: foul on or by an airborne shooter following what?--a made goal.) Now consider the reason behind these answers. Grasp the WHY and you understand.

Participating ...
 

So a sixth team member could be on the court during some dead balls (between free throws, or immediately after a goal, both dead ball situations), and you would simply send the sixth team member off the court without penalty because they are not, by your definition, participating?

(Note: I don't have an answer, I'm just asking.)

Synthesizing all the present and past rules book and casebook references I could find, I derive this:
1. Sixth person discovered on the court prior to ball being made live: no penalty.
2. Sixth person discovered on the court while ball is live: team technical ("participating simultaneously", 10-2-12)
3. Sixth person discovered after that during dead ball: team technical ("participating simultaneously", 10-2-12)

Thus, a person can be "participating", as in this case, even though the ball is dead. Admittedly, without a definitive definition of "participating" by the NFHS, this could be a hard sell.

I'm really challenging the concept, seemingly based on logic and reason only and on no rule that I can find, that, "participating" is necessarily equivalent with "only while ball is live". The logical gymnastics necessary, as previously placed into evidence, without any clear expression from any rule reference only emboldens my challenge to what my beloved and respected NevadaRef presents. I do bow before him, but want to politely disagree until persuaded otherwise.
Aw heck, it's so pathetically rare of a chance that this would even happen in as game, why should I even bring it up?
I reserve the right to be wrong...

Not quite.
While I firmly believe that the sixth individual is not participating under these circumstances and thus cannot be penalized under that specific rule, the sotuation could fall under the purview of a substitute technical foul for failure to report to the scorer or failure to be properly beckoned onto the court by an official.
This is exactly what I would use to justify a penalty after a made goal with the clock running and the ball dead prior to the ensuing throw-in. You don't know how the sixth man got out there, but this is a time during which he cannot have entered legally and he got out there somehow, so a penalty is justified.

On the other hand, following a made FT, he could have quickly zipped in from the table without you noticing and it would be inappropriate to penalize that. I you don't observe the entry, you need to be certain that it was illegal in order to penalize it.

The two separate rules for substitute technicals and six team members participating should cover all of the situations requiring a penalty.

Which player are you penalizing in that case?

Dead Ball ...
 

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.

What's the call?

Ask the coach who was supposed to come out? (He said sarcastically.)

We Choose To Interpret Difficult Basketball Rules ...
 

“… not because they are easy, but because they are hard” (President John F. Kennedy, 1962)

You could T the 6th man up for illegally entering the court. Or you could figure out why random bench personnel jump on and off the court during dead balls in your games.

Camron knows which questions to ask. :)

For those who don't know, his point is that a substitute technical is charged to the individual team member, not just the team, so the calling official must identify a specific offender.

I see three legit ways of determining this info.

1. Consult with the scorer who BY RULE is to track the team members who start the game and enter as substitutes. If he is doing this task, you can discern who was already in the game and who wasn't. If not, proceed to #2.

2. One of the six must now depart and go to the bench. Whack whomever the team elects to remove.

3. Sometimes they give it away. "Joey, what are you doing? You are out!" Whack that one.

By rule no call can be made. The officials just messed up. Have the extra man removed before making the ball live again. This is no different from having a correctable error occur which is now too late to fix. Accept it and move on.

I don't know that many scorers record who is or is not in the game aside from marking them as having participated in a quarter. If there is a player on the floor who had not been previously marked as participating in that quarter, you could get that info. But, if all the players had previously been in and one returned, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe ...
 

No you can't. How do we know who he is? He wasn't noticed until there was a dead ball between free throws, or immediately after a goal. Not reporting and/or not being beckoned is a individual substitute technical not a team technical and must be charged to an individual team member.

10-2 SUBSTITUTE TECHNICAL
A substitute shall not enter the court:
ART. 1 Without reporting to the scorer.
ART. 2 Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters and
during time-outs.

Also, what did the substitute do wrong? In this multiple substitute situation, all substitutes reported to the scorer, and all were beckoned by an official.

Where's the illegal act for a 10-2 individual substitute penalty?

Nobody entered the court illegally, somebody stayed on the court illegally.

You can't make up stuff as you go along.

Citation ???
 

Rule citation please.

Too Late To Fix ...
 

Which rule?

Here's another rule, a real rule, written in a rulebook: NFHS 10-1-6: A team shall not: Have more than five team members participating simultaneously. If discovered while being violated.

This debate simply hinges on the definition of "participating" and I haven't seen such a definition for this situation from the NFHS.

This is not a correctable error situation, so let's not go there, please.

If this is discovered after the horn, as the six team members are returning to the bench for an intermission (they're not players anymore, nor, in my opinion, are they participating), then it's probably too late to penalize, but not in the example that I gave.

Stupid NFHS rules editor.

You said the 6th player showed up only during dead balls (multiple times according your post), which mean he walked onto the court at some point. Why are players walking on and off the court and you're not noticing?

At some point you need to start officiating and quit letting this stuff happen.

Hypothetical Situation ...
 

In my hypothetical situation nobody knew when extra player "showed up" (walked onto the court). The extra player was discovered during a dead ball.

It was a hypothetical situation. It didn't happen to me. Probably will never happen to anybody. It was posted to show an extreme example of an extra player discovered during a dead ball and whether, or not, the team should be penalized with a technical foul. I know for sure that we can't penalize an individual player for not reporting and/or not being beckoned because all substitutes reported to the scorer, and all were beckoned by an official. Also, we don't know who the extra player was.

Officiate basketball long enough (thirty-six years for me) and you'll eventually find yourself with six players on the court no matter how good your mechanics are, and no matter how frequently you check incoming and outgoing substitutes, and count players after intermissions and/or timeouts. When it happens you have to know how to properly penalize it, not just make up stuff as you go along.

Then what is your confusion about the rule? If discovered during a dead ball, you can't do anything but send the player off. If discovered during a live ball, assess the T.

don't go down this rabbit hole. it wont end well.

Participating ...
 

I think that we all can agree on that.

Citation please. You'll probably need a definition of "participating". Good luck with that.

So you're going to ignore the sixth team member in the following scenarios because the ball is dead?

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. What’s the call?

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. What’s the call?

Please note that although I'm leaning toward penalizing six team members in some dead ball situations, I'm not 100% sure that I'm correct in doing so, certainly not as sure as some of you are that you can't penalize six team members in all dead ball situations.

Without a NFHS definition of "participating" none of us can be 100% sure what to do unless we make up stuff as we go along, or depend on situations that harken back to jump balls after every goal.

What won't end well? Enforcing the rules as written? That's exactly what officials are instructed to do. The NCAAM even has that as a POE this year.
Your advice continues to be wrong and not worth listening to.

Use the NFHS play rulings and rules which state that a team member participates when the ball becomes live. You are the only one who doesn't agree with that definition.

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."

Use your best judgment. If a timeout was called and you immediately notice 6 are walking toward the bench, in most scenarios you can probably deduce with high certainty that there were 6 guys on the floor. For me, personally, that is enough personal knowledge to administer the technical.

Edit: I don't have NFHS case book in front of me, but perhaps comparable adjudication is therein.

You're like that uncle that everyone wishes won't show up to family events.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...4/facepalm.jpg

Says the little kid who constantly misbehaves and has to be spanked.

I may be mistaken but I don't believe Raymond's comment was in reference to how to enforce the rules but in following the thread that as it was going.

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.

Ncaa ...
 

I'm not an NCAA official, but I did find this (below) on my hard drive (no date, sorry)

NCAA Bulletin
In a recent game, six players participated in the game for one team. Several officials and administrators asked for clarification and we are releasing the following play situation:

SITUATION: Team A has six players on the playing court when the ball is made live with five seconds remaining in the game. A1’s successful field goal attempt is in the air when the time expires ending the game. Immediately after the expiration of time and before the officials have left the playing court, one of the officials observes that Team A had six players on the court when the basket was scored. What is the correct ruling?

RULING: The field goal shall count because A6 became a player when the ball became alive (Rule 3-4.1.c). However, the game has not ended since the officials have not left the court, which ends their jurisdiction and approves the score. The officials should award Team B two free throws and the game will continue with an overtime period if both free throws are successful (Rule 2-4.4, 5-7.7. and 10-2.6).

Further Comment: Rule 10-2.6 requires that the sixth player participate when the ball is alive. There is no time limit within which the officials have to recognize and penalize this technical foul. However, the officials must see the violation occur or have personal knowledge that it did occur in order to penalize the infraction. A monitor may not be used to obtain such knowledge (Rule 10-2.6, 2-13.2 and 5-7.7).

Hopefully this clarification will assist officials with the understanding and application of these rules. Thank you for your attention to this information.

At the very least, this should emphasis why officials must take their time, and do everything that they can possibly do, using good mechanics, to prevent situations like these from happening.

NFHS Food For Thought ...
 

(2011-12)10.2.2 SITUATION: During a live ball and with the clock running, substitute A6
enters the court. RULING: A technical foul is charged if recognized by an official
before the ball becomes live following the first dead ball.

10.5.3 SITUATION: A5 has just received his/her fifth foul of the game. A5 (a) is erroneously permitted to remain in the game for another two minutes before the scorer realizes the mistake; or (b) leaves the game after the coach is notified of the disqualification. At the intermission between the third and fourth quarter, A5 reports as a substitute and subsequently enters the game. RULING: In (a), as soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed. 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 unless the official deemed it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. If detected after the ball becomes live, it is a technical foul charged directly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges. The player is immediately removed from the game and Team B is awarded two free-throws and the ball. (2-11-5 Note 2)

It most cases, if I saw this type of activity (6 players on court) during a dead ball, I would simply wait until the ball became live and then assess the T. Sometimes, and by that I mean rarely, it is best/easiest to adjudicate something that everyone would easily understand. After a made basket, the ball is dead. Think of the difference between blowing the whistle then and dealing with the 6 players (T or not?, explain to both coaches, get crew together, etc.) or waiting 1 second for an inbounder to get the ball making the ball live and then blowing the whistle. In the latter, everyone knows that a T is warranted and the adjudication is much easier. Not saying it is the absolute correct thing to do. Just thinking that after a made basket an official would have to be very quick to notice 6 players on the court before the ball is live. Unlikely to happen but if it did happen, then the patient whistle until the ball is live might be best for everyone.

It Did Occur ...
 

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.

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.

Nonsensical ...
 

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

Really???

Stupid NFHS Rules Editors ...
 

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.

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.

One Might Infer ...
 

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

Agree.


Agree.

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.

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.

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

Good Catch ...
 

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)?

Stuff Happens ...
 

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.

Thanks, Seriously ...
 

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

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.

For Your Eyes Only ...
 

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?

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)?

Add Fuel To The Fire ...
 

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

https://youtu.be/AjplZXgodhs

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

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

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Recognized ...
 

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

It's The Constitution State ...
 

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

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3775/1...8029f778_m.jpg

They Have Six Players On The Court, That's A Technical Foul ...
 

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

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

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.

Rule Book Solution ...
 

In all of my scenerios, either all the substitutes reported and were beckoned, (maybe there were mulitple subsitutions and an extra player was inadvertently left on the court) or the officials had no idea who the extra team member was, or how he go there, so a subsitute technical foul is not a rule book soluton (even if it were, we don't know whom to charge it to).

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.) One of the head coaches is yelling "They have six players on the court, that's a technical foul". Are six team members moving into positions to set up a full court press "participating", especially while the clock is running?

What is the rule for when a player ceases to be a player and becomes bench personnel during a substitution process?

It's in the rules book twice! Rules 3-3-3 & 4-34-3. The moment that the substitute replacing him becomes a player. Now assuming that such entry was legal, that is when the substitute enters the court.

Therefore, if at a stoppage you have five players (A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5) and three substitutes (A6, A7, and A8) legally enter, you now have five players (of which A6, A7, and A8 are three) and three team members (all of which are 3 of the 5 from A1 - A5) who are bench personnel on the court. If one of those three being replaced inadvertently remains on the court when the ball becomes live again, you now have a substitute who did not properly report or get beckoned to re-enter the game. As this individual is properly classified by the rules as a team member who is bench personnel, a substitute technical foul is warranted, if this individual's presence is detected at a later time during a dead ball.

Start your 5-second count then blow your whistle for a Technical.

Made basket by Team A, immediate time-out by Team A is granted by the officials, officials notice six team members departing the floor for Team A.

How do you handle it?

Nobody Entered The Court Illegally ...
 

Good point, but who do you charge the substitute technical foul to?

10-2 SUBSTITUTE TECHNICAL
A substitute shall not enter the court:
ART. 1 Without reporting to the scorer.
ART. 2 Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters and
during time-outs.

What did one of the six team members on the court do wrong (other than cause an extra player to be on the court, a 10-1-6 issue)? In a multiple substitute situation, assume all substitutes reported to the scorer, and all were beckoned by an official.

Where's the illegal act for a 10-2 individual substitute penalty? How can they enter when they never left?

Nobody entered the court illegally, somebody stayed on the court illegally.

Remember, many years ago substitutes were required to report and state whom they were replacing (not that many scorekeepers kept track). Now they just have to report to the scorekeeper and don't have to state whom they are replacing.

Clock Was Running ...
 

Great question. I honestly don't know for either a written test, or how I would actually handle it in a real game.

If it were for an intermission rather than a timeout (no players all bench personnel at this point), I would ignore it and make sure that only five came onto the floor after the intermission.

For a timeout? Tough question. If the opposing coach was pointing out the extra players to me, I might be forced to use purpose and intent, but even that may not back me up enough support charging a team technical.

No coach in my ear, I'm probably passing, but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth, mainly because I would be pissed at myself for allowing an extra player in the game.

The big part of my last scenario was that the clock was running.

After multiple substitutions during which all substitutes reported and were properly beckoned, after the ball becomes live, 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.) One of the head coaches is yelling "They have six players on the court, that's a technical foul". Are six team members moving into positions to set up a full court press "participating", especially while the clock is running?

Sometimes you just have to officiate and make a decision.

Don't You Loose Your Lip On Me ...
 

If one of the six gives you some lip will it result in the head coach getting an indirect technical foul, and if so, which one of the six? I do understand that in some cases bench personnel can be on the court, but in this case we don't know which one it is. In this multiple substitute situation that preceded the scoring play, all the substitutes reported to the scorer, and all were beckoned by an official. That's why (I'm guessing here) why its a team technical foul rather than an individual technical foul because sometimes we don't know exactly how that extra guy got onto the court, we just know that there's an extra guy out there, and it's illegal.

Time-out granted before noticing 6th man? Then we missed the 6-man violation and we move on.

Yep, instead of debating yourself and waffling back-and-forth about what to do.

Isn't Participating ...
 

I've given some thought to this specific scenario throughout the day, and Raymond's interpretation sounds just about right. Even I will admit that the extra man isn't participating when he was discovered by the official after the timeout had been granted.

The onion is being peeled away.

Now, back to made goal, dead ball (not yet at disposal), clock running, six man full court pressure, no timeout, maybe with the coach politely pointing out the extra man? That extra player has to be participating? Right?

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

My only problem with the thread was your focus on exam questions instead of coming to a conclusion about your options on the floor.

You had already established long ago, and nobody disputed you, that participating was not fully defined the rulebook

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Good Morning, What Happened Last Night ???
 

If there was a "correct" way? Stupid NFHS rules editors.

Every call that we make should be (if possible) rule based (as if on a written exam). If not, it will be difficult for us to defend our calls when we get the phone call from our assigner early the following morning. When a coach loses a last second, one point game because (in his mind, forget about the missed layups, stupid fouls, bad coaching) the official "blew the call" (especially an unambiguous rule based call, not a subjective call) the situation can very quickly go up and down the chain of command: coach, athletic director, assigner, official. If the call was contrary to an unambiguous rule (not a subjective call) it will be a tough phone call to go along with our first cup of coffee in the morning.

Here's a typical written exam situation (rare, but it really happened). Several years ago, a conference championship game, one of our guys (trained by us, transferred to another board) who I worked with a dozen times, and whom I believed was an excellent official, when informed, while in the locker room immediately after the game (after leaving the vicinity of the court), that there was a scoring error and that the game was not a one point victory but should have gone into overtime, came back out to toss the jump ball for the overtime, that reversed the victory to the other team. It was more than phone calls, it made the front pages of various newspaper sports sections, naming the official, all over our small state.

The moral of the story, if possible, don't make up rules as you go along.

I hate "kicked" (unambiguous rule based, not subjective) rules, especially when I kick a rule, or the kicked rule involves me. I'm sure that we all do. From March, 2017:

Watch Me Pull A Rabbit Out Of My Hat ...
 

I'm now going to attempt to answer my own questions from an earlier post. This is the best I can do without an unambiguous NFHS definition of participating. My answers are based on what I've learned from this thread.

A) Head coach of Team B requests, and is granted, a timeout, at which point he immediately complains to the officials that Team A has six team members participating. The sole purpose of his timeout is to call attention to the officials that Team A has six team members participating. Officials, who have been unaware that six team members have been participating up until that point, count six Team A members on the court before they head into their timeout huddle. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call? (Please note that this is not during an intermission, like the caseplay, but is during a timeout.)

No team technical foul. The ball is dead, and clock is stopped. The six team members are not participating.

B) Team B head coach yells to nearest official that there are six Team A players participating. Official sounds whistle to stop the action to count the players and discovers that there are six Team A team members on the court during this dead ball, clock stopped, situation. What's the call?

No team technical foul. The ball is dead, and clock is stopped. The six team members are not participating.

C) Team A has six team members participating, which goes unobserved by the officials. Official calls a travel violation on Team A. There are no substitutions after the whistle. Before administering the throw in, officials observe that Team A has six team members participating. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call?

No team technical foul. The ball is dead, and clock is stopped. The six team members are not participating.

D) Team A has six players on the court. Officials are unaware of this infraction. Team A has been awarded two free throws. The first free throw is missed. No substitutions are made. Before bouncing the ball to the free thrower for his second free throw, the officials realize that Team A has six players on the court. The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call?

No team technical foul. The ball is dead, and clock is stopped. The six team members are not participating.

E) 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. What’s the call?

I struggle, with this call. Does purpose and intent factor into this? Are six team members participating? It's very similar to G (below) but the clock isn't running.

F) Team A has six players on the court. Officials are unaware of this infraction. Team A has been awarded two free throws. The first free throw is missed. No substitutions are made. After bouncing the ball to the free thrower, and with the ball at the free thrower's disposal for his second free throw, the officials realize that Team A has six players on the court. The ball is live, and the clock is stopped. What’s the call?

The ball is live. Team technical foul for more than five team members are participating.

G) 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. What’s the call?

The clock is running. Team technical foul for more than five team members are participating.

Furthermore ...
 

Made basket by Team A, immediate time-out by Team A is granted by the officials, officials notice six team members departing the floor for Team A. How do you handle it?

No team technical foul. The ball is dead, and clock is stopped. The six team members are not participating.

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.

No team technical foul. The ball is dead, and clock is stopped. The six team members are not participating.

I've also learned that individual substitutes who have reported to the scorekeeper and have been beckoned by the officials can't be charged with an individual substitute technical foul for not reporting or not being beckoned, even if more than five team members end up on the court. It's either a team technical foul for more than five team members participating (see previous posts in this thread), or send an extra team member back to the bench, unpenalized.

Also, I've learned that if the table tells the officials that there were six team members participating during a recent live ball, or clock running situation, that it's too late to penalize because the officials themselves must recognize the infraction during a live ball, or clock running situation. I believe that we can't seek help from the table counting players (the officials themselves must recognize the infraction), but that's not the main reason why we can't penalize, it's because it's too late, the ball is now dead and the clock is now stopped.

Not the exact situation (team, not table), but similar:

I must have missed something obvious but why any focus on the clock running? Also, why can the table not be used for any assistance? That is in the rule book. Plus, if the table does recognize it during a live ball, they may hit the horn a few times, and then the ref blows his whistle making the ball dead. In that case, where it was discovered during a live ball, it becomes irrelevant because the ref blew his whistle making the ball dead? That seems illogical.

And not everything is covered by the rules, thus "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules."

Billy if the rule is that ambiguous how would you get in trouble?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Ambiguous ...
 

Only if, as some Forum members state (and if they're NFHS correct), that the rule is not ambiguous, but rather, set in stone, live ball, and only live ball, equals participating and penalize, period, end of discussion, take it to the bank, Happy Trails, Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!

I'm not that confident on my side of this debate (and that's my point). I can't cite any specific rule, or casebook play, that says we can penalize when the ball is live, and/or the clock is running. Almost all of my interpretations are my opinion (maybe with a little purpose and intent thrown in), and may in fact, be dead wrong. But I can say the same thing about the other side of this debate. Which again, is my point, that we need more information from the NFHS to correctly rule on some of these more than five situations.

My opinion is that there can be a gray area written test questions (I "play" the written test question "card" to demonstrate whether the situation is gray, or black and white, written test questions are really not too important in my little corner of Connecticut, open book, group discussion going over correct answers, all get full credit if they take the test, no matter how many wrong answers, and show up at one of over a dozen test review meeting sites) regarding some of these situations. I'm sure that other Forum members could opine that written test questions regarding some of these situations can be easily answered in a black or white manner (live ball, and only live ball, equals participate and penalize).

Keep in mind that some of my situations are quite rare in a real game. If my opinion is right, I can't get into any trouble (purpose and intent should cover me). If my opinion is wrong, I can be wrong on a written test question, and/or in a game situation.

It's not that I've never been wrong before.

My opinion: Stupid NFHS rule editors.

Others' opinion: NFHS rules regarding some of these more than five situations are as clear as day and are fine as they exist.

Intent And Purpose ...
 

... and "it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule."

Clock Running ...
 

Because it highlights my opinion versus the opinion of a few other Forum members. There are few instances where the clock is running and the ball is dead. I opine that officials can penalize for more than five in these situations because I believe that said team members are "participating" (the key to the rule), while others say officials can't.

We can all agree that we can penalize during live balls, even if the clock isn't running, no need for discussion on that. Team members are always participating under those circumstances

Dead ball with clock stopped? Even I agree that it's tough for any number of team members to participate under those circumstances, although I'm amiable to debate on that issue (dead ball after made free throw).

That just leaves a dead ball with the clock running up for debate. Can team members participate, and be penalized, under those circumstances?

Illogical ...
 

Just my point.

Just for laughs, change "Team B" to "table".

Can no penalty be assessed because (1) it wasn't actually observed by an on court official, or because (2) it was to late to penalize (dead ball and clock stopped)?

To me, doubling up on the reasons not to penalize is overkill and makes the ruling unclear, correct, but unclear. As a chemist, we try to change one variable at a time, otherwise we muddy the waters (I did A and B, the procedure was successful, was the procedure successful because I did A, or because I did B? Well, at least it was successful, Why? I don't know.).

Or, (3) does the change to "table" change the situation and thus the interpretation (ruling)?

I have questions. I don't have answers. Others may have answers. Still others may just have opinions.