4 on 5

[Nevadaref]

While playing with 4 is obviously a disadvantage, that doesn't resolve the legality question.

When a team has 5 players available they can either play short or they can't. Period.

If we used the logic of the advantage/disadvantage argument, it would not be illegal for players to simply stand OOB during the game or go sit in the front row during FTs. What advantage are they gaining by just being there off the court?

The NFHS has made it clear that they want the players on the court when they are supposed to be, not off it.

"THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES" on page 10 even states, "Basketball is played by two teams of five players each."

I believe that it is clear that a team may not play with four when it should have five. The only question is what is the penalty.

[Jimgolf]

The purpose of the rules is to ensure that no team gains an unfair advantage. I fail to see why the rules should penalize a disadvantage. This situation penalizes itself.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I'll note that 10.3.3 Sit B is still in this year's case book.

Right. And the T is "for returning during playing action."

imo, if it were a T to play (inadvertantly) with four, then the ruling would have been "Team A is charged with a T as soon as the officials notice the problem."

You are correct that a team cannot intentionally play with 4 players. If the coach insists, he gets a T for unsportinig behavior, or delaying the game, ...
But, if it's inadvertant, the penalty is, well, playing with four until there's an opportunity to "substitute."

This isn't the only rule that distinguishes between an intentional and an inadvertant act.

[Ed Maeder]

The advantage gained here is that the team has available subs but did not use them as per the rules. Then all of a sudden these subs become available. If they weren't available a minute ago then they must not be available now. In my mind there has to be some kind of penalty for this.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
The advantage gained here is that the team has available subs but did not use them as per the rules. Then all of a sudden these subs become available. If they weren't available a minute ago then they must not be available now. In my mind there has to be some kind of penalty for this.

I don't understand, Ed. A5 is still in the game, even if A5 isn't on the court. A6-A10 can enter as a sub (at the appropriate time) or A5 can return (at the appropriate time). How is that any different from A5 being on the court?

[Ed Maeder]

Then A5 has left the court for an unauthorized reason as Nevada has stated. Violation on A, B gets the ball and bring sub or A5 back in the game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
Then A5 has left the court for an unauthorized reason as Nevada has stated. Violation on A, B gets the ball and bring sub or A5 back in the game.

Leaving the court to go to your bench during a TO is an "unauthorized reason"? Iow, players aren't authorized to go off-court to their bench area during a TO?

You're kidding, right?

[Ed Maeder]

The original post said nothing about a time out. This was just substitutions and too many left the court. If it was a time out then it should be a tech for not all players returning to the court at the same time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
The original post said nothing about a time out. This was just substitutions and too many left the court. If it was a time out then it should be a tech for not all players returning to the court at the same time.

OK-- then refer to my old post. The violation is for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason during the course of play, as per the COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS in the back of the book. When did this player leave the court for an unauthorized reason during the course of play? Even Nevada has already admitted that rule doesn't fit.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
Then A5 has left the court for an unauthorized reason as Nevada has stated.

Either case 10.3.3B is wrong, or the statement above is wrong.

Prior to the rules change, if A5's leaving was "unathorized", it would have been an immediate T. The case said it was only a T to return. So, I believe that the case is correct, and it's not leaving for an unauthorized reason.

[Ed Maeder]

That is what I feel is the problem, that there is no rule that fits and maybe there should be. I know that every situation on the court can't have a rule for it but I have seen this in games twice this year and it was dealt with differently each time. 10-3-3 case play is correct but again this deals with another part of the player returning to the court during playing action.

[Edited by Ed Maeder on Dec 9th, 2005 at 03:58 PM]

[BayStateRef]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
What is your problem with being overly obvious about counting the players? At the Tech-Ga. game on Sunday, Burr and Valentine allowed a resumption of play with 6 players. They also prevented another one. You should have seen them counting from then on.

I was at an officials camp, working a game under the supervision of a veteran offiicial, when nine subs came into the game. I started pointing at the players and counting (to myself) while wagging my finger at each player, "1, 2, 3 ..."

At the next time out, the veteran offers this advice: "They know you can't see; they doubt you can hear; they are sure you don't know the rules; and now you are proving to them that you are so dumb that you can't count to 5?" By all means, count, he said. But don't point.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
That is what I feel is the problem, that there is no rule that fits and maybe there should be. I know that every situation on the court can't have a rule for it but I have seen this in games twice this year and it was dealt with differently each time. 10-3-3 case play is correct but again this deals with another part of the player returning to the court during playing action.

Ed, there is no definitive rule in the book that says that the team can't play with 4 in this particular situation if the officials don't catch it before the clock starts. There is a definitive rule that says that the 5th. player can't enter the court after the clock starts if he/she is late. That's all we have to go on to call this one.

[Ed Maeder]

Agreed.

[Nevadaref]

JR,
I got to thinking about this a bit.
The rule says, "A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason."

The comment on the rule change says, "leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the penalty of a technical foul not being assessed."


Now this doesn't necessarily mean that leaving the court during a dead ball is not also covered by the rule. The comment only states that leaving the court has been an increasing problem during the course of play. One can certainly interpret that to mean that leaving the floor during a dead ball, while illegal, is not an increasing problem. So although it is still illegal, it just hasn't become a big deal in recent years and the NFHS is merely highlighting the leaving during the course of play.


So what we need the NFHS to specify for us is:
1. Is leaving the floor during a dead ball by a player (other than a time-out or intermission) allowed?

2. What is the penalty if this is illegal? A violation, a technical foul, removal from the game temporarily, etc.?

3. What happens if that player has not yet returned when the ball becomes live again?


Right now the answers to these questions are open to interpretation.