2 T's?

[tjones1]

This happen:
Whistle OOB, dead ball. There is a sub at the table however no one sees him/her. The player (A5) assumes he/she has been subed for and goes off the court (there could of been a T here, but it wasn't called). Now, 4 players for one of the teams, the player who went to the bench comes back on and everything is fine. Play continued and the sub came in at the next dead ball. ------So if you passed on the first one for leaving the court, 10.3.3 states a T should be called for A5 coming back onto the court.

-However-, IF the sub would have came on during a dead ball and then the ball became live, you've got nothing, he/she is now a legal player. But, I had someone tell me that if you had a running clock (live ball) and she went off the court and the sub at the table came onto the floor with a running clock that there's no call due to a running clock. I disagree, wouldn't that be a T on the sub for coming onto the floor and a T on the player for going off? Also, wouldn't it be the same (2 T's) if the player who went off did so during a dead ball and then her ran onto the court after the ball became live?


[Edited by tjones1 on Dec 31st, 2004 at 06:08 PM]

[Nevadaref]

The proper reasons for the two technicals that you are inquiring about are:
1. 10-3-3 Leave the court for an unauthorized reason
2. 10-2-1+2 A substitute shall not enter the court:
...Without reporting to the scorer.
...Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters.
Since the penalty specifies that it is one foul for either or both requirements and it is penalized if discovered before the ball becomes live, you friend may have a point about being unable to penalize this during a live ball.
That doesn't mean that the team gets away with it, it just means that you should probably use 10-1-6 "...Have more than five team members participating simultaneously" as your justification for a T during a live ball, clock running situation.

Lastly, please remember that you cannot ever allow a team to play with only four, if they have a fifth available.
Although the Case Book play that you cited does make it seem like the T is for "returning during playing action," it really is for leaving for an unauthorized reason. This is a poorly written Case Book play. I wish the NFHS would change it. If you check in the Rules Book, you will see that there is no mention of returning during playing action, so that can't be the justification for the penalty.

[BktBallRef]

The player leaves the floor mistakenly, thinking he/she has been subbed for. He/she returns when it is realized that the sub did not enter. Unless some advantage is gained, I'm not calling a T for this.

As for the second part of your scenario, I would have a T for entering without being beckoned. I'm not calling a second T.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
The player leaves the floor mistakenly, thinking he/she has been subbed for. He/she returns when it is realized that the sub did not enter. Unless some advantage is gained, I'm not calling a T for this.

I agree, I wouldn't call it either. And it wasn't called.

As for the second part of your scenario, I would have a T for entering without being beckoned. I'm not calling a second T.

Agree again.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The proper reasons for the two technicals that you are inquiring about are:
1. 10-3-3 Leave the court for an unauthorized reason
2. 10-2-1+2 A substitute shall not enter the court:
...Without reporting to the scorer.
...Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters.
Since the penalty specifies that it is one foul for either or both requirements and it is penalized if discovered before the ball becomes live, you friend may have a point about being unable to penalize this during a live ball.

If it would of happen though, she would have came on during a live ball. Not during a dead ball and then it becoming live.

That doesn't mean that the team gets away with it, it just means that you should probably use 10-1-6 "...Have more than five team members participating simultaneously" as your justification for a T during a live ball, clock running situation.

There was only 4 as a player went off. So there wouldn't of been more than 5 if she came onto the floor.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by tjones1

There was only 4 as a player went off. So there wouldn't of been more than 5 if she came onto the floor.

Actually, there are MORE than FIVE TEAM MEMBERS participating in this situation. The PLAYER who left the court for an unauthorized reason is still in the game. That PLAYER has never legally left the game. The team member/substitute who comes onto the floor during the live ball must also be considered to be participating even though her entry was not legal because she is physically on the floor and the ball is live. So if you add up your players and team members (see 4-34 for definitions) you get six.


In this thread, I just gave you the precise rules. You will have to decide for yourself whether or not you call it by-the-book. Tony has given you his opinion on that.

[zebraman]

I think case 10.3.3 makes it pretty clear that you call the T because the player returned during playing action... not because a player left the floor.

The cases that I have seen where a T is called for a player leaving for an unauthorized reason have all been intentional. I think case play 10.3.3 makes the point that when a player leaves through substitution confusion that you don't need to call a T.

Z

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Actually, there are MORE than FIVE TEAM MEMBERS participating in this situation. The PLAYER who left the court for an unauthorized reason is still in the game. That PLAYER has never legally left the game. The team member/substitute who comes onto the floor during the live ball must also be considered to be participating even though her entry was not legal because she is physically on the floor and the ball is live. So if you add up your players and team members (see 4-34 for definitions) you get six.


In this thread, I just gave you the precise rules. You will have to decide for yourself whether or not you call it by-the-book. Tony has given you his opinion on that.

Yes, I overlooked that. Sorry for misreading it.