This is my first post though I've been reading the forum for a few years now and have really enjoyed many of the discussions. Situation last night that I am hoping to get feedback on. I think I know the answer. On a deadball, we had several substitutions. The ball was inbounded, I was new lead and my partner was trail. As the ball crossed halfcourt, my partner stopped the game because someone at the table told him that home team only had 4 players in the game. My partner blew the whistle and summoned me over. We realized that the home team did, in fact, only have 4 in the game. We discussed it and my partner told me that he thought that it was legal. I used to think that but somewhere along the way, either from reading the rule book or from what other officials told me, I thought that it was illegal if a team had 5 eligible to play (and I know Coach Dale did it in the movie Hoosiers, "My team is on the floor". Anyway, as the referee, I decided to assess a bench technical and take away the home team coach's privilege to stand. Needless to say, he was not happy. I, now think after some thought and discussion after the game, think that the act of having four in the game is legal. I am very mad at myself for screwing it up. Any thoughts? Also, any suggestions on what to do if you aren't sure of a rule? Thanks.

No T unless the 5th player comes onto the floor during play. At the next whistle (the one you blew to figure out what was going on) bring the 5th player back on.

At least you realized you made a mistake, and I am sure that it will never happen to you again.

Have gone over this with some of our officials and the first thing that needs to be dealt with is to make sure you don't in-bound the ball with too many or not enough players. After several substitutions make sure you count extra careful to not get into these situations. That being said there is no rule that says this is a tech but there is no rule that says it isn't. Obviously the team that is playing with four is not gaining an advantage, but they are breaking the rule that states they must start the game with five and if they have no legal subs to replace disqualified or injured players they must continue with fewer than five. This is a good situation for something to be in the book to cover this. What if a team has legal subs but just decides not to use them but later on they decide to use them. I'm of the thought to give them a tech and then get the sub into the game and continue. I am also open to discussion in the other direction as Mr Rust has stated.

Largent, IMO you need to work on these mistakes:

1. Count both teams before restarting play, but don't be overly obvious about it.
2. Review the T rule before your next game. No T warranted here. 6 players, yes, but not for 4.
3. Ask your partner why he stopped the game because of a comment from the table? This isn't necessarily a good practice to get into.

You made a mistake. So has everyone else on this board --plenty of times. That's how we get better.

Thanks for the advice. Clearly, the best thing to do would have been to ensure there were five players on the court. A lesson learned, that's for sure.

I know some will claim preventative officiating however I pose the question is it our job to make sure the coach sends out the right number of players on the court?

In football the officials counts the players as well..however only because its illegal and will penalize accordingly if caught!

No, it's not our job under the rules. Having the right number of players out there is solely the coach's responsibility. However, if you don't wanna do middle school games for the rest of your life, it's probably a good idea not to let this happen too often. Really. :)

Evaluators kinda expect you to do this type of preventive officiating.

I don't do middle school games so what are you insinuating?

And I never said that I didn't count players only that I posed the question if officials should (have to) and compared it to football.

Rev,

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'm stunned at all the people here who have told you that playing with only 4 is legal. IT IS NOT!

Prior to this year it was a TEAM technical foul by 10-1-9 "Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."
(Not applicable to your situation unless it occurred following a TO or intermission.)

OR it was a PLAYER technical foul under 2004-2005 rule 10-3-3 "Leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out of bounds."

Since the player has not been substituted for leaving the court is not authorized.

This season 10-1-9 is the same, but 10-3-3 has been changed. Leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason has become a violation and is now located under 9-3-2.

2005-2006 rule 9-3-2 "A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason."

Since no substitute entered for the fifth player, that player is required to remain on the floor, and has committed a violation once the ball becomes live.

In summary, you would have been almost right last season (no indirect to the coach just charge the team), but this season you should only have had a violation on the team with only 4 on the floor unless it was following a time-out or intermission.

The middle school refence referred to officials who don't bother to count the players who return to the floor after a time-out. I did not intimate in any way that <b>you</b> were one of those officials.

You asked a question. I merely gave you my opinion as an answer.

Next time I won't.

Happy now?

That's not the purpose and intent of the new rule. The <b>COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS</b> at the back of this year's book sez about this rule --"leaving the court <b>during the course of play</b> has been increasing with the penalty of a technical foul not being assessed". What part of <b>"during the course of play"</b> don't you understand, Nevada.

You're trying to apply a rule that has got absolutely nothing to do with the situation being discussed. Apples and oranges.

Ok, JR by the wording of the comment you have a point. If the actual leaving takes place during a dead ball the new rule is not a perfect fit.

However, player is still off the court during the course of play. What do you think should be done about it?
Can players just leave the floor as they please during a dead ball? I doubt that is within the spirit or intent of the change. This action used to be illegal and still has to be deemed such, the new wording only intended to change the penalty for leaving the floor, not make it legal.

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

I can think of a few other rules that might apply though:

a. the new 10-3-3: The player was OOB during the dead ball and now has delayed returning, so perhaps we really should T him.

b. 9-2-11 or 9-2-12 depending upon which team executes the throw-in to restart the game. (This obviously wouldn't apply if the game were restarted with the administration of a FT or jump ball.)

c. even 4-47-1 might apply if the opponents are making the throw-in.

The bottom line, which is obvious to me, is that the players, who are not executing a throw-in, are not supposed to leave the floor during a dead ball unless it is a time-out or intermission.

Otherwise we run into some major difficulties:
e.g.

1. What if the officials don't notice that the player is missing until the ball is live? They don't know exactly when he left.

2. Can players line up OOB prior to the administration of a FT and then run onto the court once the ball becomes live?
Or does this action fall under 10-3-7 (committing an unsporting foul)?

3. Can a player just leave the floor during any dead ball and then not even try to come back?

Nevada, looking at this play, do you really think that the team that is going with 4 players is gaining any kind of advantage? All of the rules that you're trying to make fit were implemented to stop a team or player from gaining an unfair advantage. In this play, the team is actually putting themself at a major disadvantage. Why punish them twice? Why stop the other team from enjoying their 5 on 4 advantage either? Now, if the 5th. player does come back on during play, then that team is gaining an unfair advantage at that time and should be penalized for it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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? :)

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 <b>during the course of play</b>, 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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Example of a play that meets those criteria?

While the referee is reporting a foul on White #33, Blue #4 decides to leave the floor, run down the hallway, and get a drink of water.

a. He returns to the court prior to the ball being put at the disposal of the thrower.

b. He is still off the floor when the ball become live again.

On the NFHS web site under COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS, it also stresses that the violation is for "leaving the court <b>during the course of play</b>...". The same COMMENTS also say that the violation should be called as soon as the player leaves the court.

So....according to your interpretation of this rule, and also naturally complying with the FED directive, as soon as the player above stepped OOB we gotta whistle him for a violation.....before that player even starts for the hallway.

You are one great l'il mind reader, aren't you, to know definitively that the player above was leaving the floor for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason?

Please let me know when you're gonna call that, Nevada. I'll book a flight to see that one. Should be entertaining as hell :D

Don't buy your ticket yet. All I did was comply with your request for an example of a play that meets those three criteria I listed above that I wish the NFHS would clarify.

BTW, we know from last season's POEs that a kid leaving the confines of the bench to get a drink in the hallway is a T. Therefore, why would a player leaving the floor during a dead ball to get a drink in the hallway not be penalized in the same manner?

Riddle me that one Batman! :)

Um....maybe because that part of the POE referred specifically to <b>bench</b> personnel <b>only</b>? Doesn't it say that coaches must ensure that <b>bench personnel</b> stay on the <b>bench</b>?

And also maybe because that POE also discussed the problem of <b>players</b> leaving the court for "unauthorized reasons" in a completely different paragraph above the one related to bench personnel?

Two completely different concerns in the same POE, Nevada.

Good try though. :D

__________________________________________________ _________

Nothing if you do it at the right time. In fact before the game and at the half I actually count 1-2-3-4-5 out loud so the teams but not he stands can hear me. But I've seen guys doing an obvious count when they should have been watching the play developing right before them. Or instead of counting when the players come out they are looking around at the stands or whatever and then count after the ball is put in play. It made them look out of sync with what was going on at the moment.