|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 02:54am
|
||||
|
||||
|
In my haste last night, I put the ball in play with the visiting team having 4 players on the court. About 10 seconds later, a visiting player runs out onto the court directly from his bench.
I hope we're forgiven for not taking the coaching box from the HC considering we were the ones to put it in play with a number other than 10 on the court. Probably not, but we didn't take the box away. First time I've seen 4. It's easier to notice 6 (or more). 
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 03:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bench personnel entering without permission is an indirect on the coach.
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 04:47am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Here's why: If this happened after a TO or intermission, then the kid is still one of the five players legally in the game and his returning is a team technical foul according to 10.1.9. If a different kid comes onto the court, we have a substitute technical foul for either not reporting to the scorer or not being beckoned by an official. Either way, the head coach does not receive an indirect T per the chart on page 73. If this happened after another dead ball, then the precise call is less clear due to the change to 10-3-3. I would likely call the T under the new 10-3-3 or 10-3-7. I don't believe that I could justify a team technical here. Therefore, this one is a player technical foul and the head coach still doesn't receive an indirect T per the chart.
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 07:24am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 08:40am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1. Is there a call that should be made when the fifth player leaves the floor during the dead ball or is this considered legal? If there is a call here, then that would happen prior to encountering the T situation for delaying returning to the floor. 10.3.3SitB, which you pointed out, seems to indicate that nothing should be called when the confused player leaves and remains on the bench. Since he didn't do it on purpose, I can see that. (Of course, we should also ask what if the player leaves on purpose and goes somewhere else besides the bench during the dead ball. We need an answer for that one too.) This leads us into question 2. 2. It used to be a T for leaving for an unauthorized reason, but now it seems that we have to wait until the player returns before we can talk about a technical foul. If that fifth player doesn't try to return, I don't know what the NFHS wants called, if anything. One could certainly contend that the player definitely has delayed returning. Should he be T'd while standing around off the court waiting? Must the official wait until he attempts to return to assess the T? Does the NFHS consider it enough of a penalty that the player is temporarily out of the game and his team is short a person? The Fed has some loose ends to tie up here. Either way, we agree that A5 is still considered a player and not bench personnel, so the T isn't charged indirectly to the head coach.
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 08:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 09:32am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2. It used to be a T for leaving for an unauthorized reason, but now it seems that we have to wait until the player returns before we can talk about a technical foul. If that fifth player doesn't try to return, I don't know what the NFHS wants called, if anything. One could certainly contend that the player definitely has delayed returning. Should he be T'd while standing around off the court waiting? Must the official wait until he attempts to return to assess the T? Does the NFHS consider it enough of a penalty that the player is temporarily out of the game and his team is short a person? [/B][/QUOTE]1) Did the player leave the floor for an unauthorized reason during the course of play? If not, you can't call a violation, can you? 2) See Bob Jenkins reply. The rules haven't changed. The penalty for part of the old rule has changed. That part of the rule isn't applicable to this situation anyway, as per #1 above.
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 12:09pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
The problem I have with this is:
In 4-34-1, it clearly says that a player is one of the five team members who are legally on the floor at any given time. By the definition, the kid running on the court wasn't a player, then, since he wasn't legally on the floor. So the kid would have to be bench personnel or there is a hole in the rules. If the kid is bench personnel, then the technical has to get addressed via 10-4-2 and there should've been an indirect technical foul on the HC. Here's what happened: One of my partners was the C tableside and whistled the technical when the fifth player ran on the floor (without his hockey stick). He informed the table and then did inform the coach about the indirect technical -- but neglected to tell the coach about losing the box. So I'm still not sure if we are right and I don't have time to dig through the casebook now. But it seems the consensus here is that it's just a player technical. Which, to me, would be equitable. Too much business travel. Only 3 varsity boys games worked thus far this season. --Rich Edited to add: I just read case 10.3.3B. Player technical only. Right outcome for the wrong reasons. Oh well, again I learn I don't know everything  [Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Dec 11th, 2005 at 12:12 PM]
|
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005, 01:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005, 12:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Someone in the NFHS office simply wrote something that was not quite right in that case book play a few years ago. As all of us here know, just because the NFHS says something doesn't mean that they are correct. See the LGP "clarification" a couple of years ago. MTD also contends, and probably rightly so, that the case book play which uses the wording "double violation" is incorrect as it should say "simultaneous violation." There are other examples too. I make an effort to be precise. The NFHS often does not.
|
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005, 12:07am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2) See Bob Jenkins reply. The rules haven't changed. The penalty for part of the old rule has changed. That part of the rule isn't applicable to this situation anyway, as per #1 above. [/B][/QUOTE] 1. I didn't say that the call had to be a violation did I? BTW, what exactly is meant by "during the course of play"? Does the ball have to be live? I still don't think that the new violation only applies during a live ball. I believe that the NFHS only HIGHLIGHTED that aspect of the new violation in the comments section. The wording in the Rules Book seems to be more inclusive. 2. I saw Bob's reply. The casebook reason is wrong and always has been.
|
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005, 04:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Say what? From 2004/05 Rule Book: Rule 10-3-3- "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out of bounds". From 2005/06 Rule book: Rule 9-3-2- "A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason". Rule 10-3-3- "A player shall not delay returning after legally being out of bounds". The wording in R10-3-3 about it being a "T" for "delay return after legally being out of bounds" has been in for many, many years. If the player is illegally OOB, it's an immediate violation under new 9-3-2 now. I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make on this one, Nevada. Nothing's changed on this one except for the penalty on part of the old rule.
|
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005, 05:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are two points which I have been trying to make in this thread.
Point #1) Can PLAYERS leave the floor (be out of bounds) during a dead ball period which is not a time-out or intermission? Is there any rule which covers this? Examples: a. While the officials are discussing something with each other, during a dead ball, may A1, A2, and A3 go sit down on Team A's bench. Have they broken any rule? b. A2 fouls B1 in the 3rd quarter. It is his fourth personal foul during the contest, and he knows that his coach is going to remove him from the game. A6 has reported to the scorer and is waiting at the table to replace A2, but may not legally enter yet as B1 must shoot two FTs because of the foul. Prior to the awarding of the FTs and while the ball is still dead, A2 leaves the floor and sits down on Team A's bench. He makes no effort to return. Is there anything wrong with this? May he remain there during the first FT? It is my belief that under the old 10-3-3 these players could receive player technical fouls for LEAVING the court for an unauthorized reason. However, that part of the rule has been removed. So does the part of that rule which remains in Rule 10 for this season apply to either of the above examples. Should a player who never returns be considered to be DELAYING his return or must the official wait until he tries to return to penalize his actions? I don't know what the NFHS answer is to that question. Does the new 9-3-2 apply? Your answer to this so far has been no, because they did not leave "during the course of play" as the comment to the rule change says. Yet that phrase is not in the actual rule, so perhaps the NFHS really does intend for it to cover these cases. Point #2) Both the old and the new 10-3-3 stated that it was a technical foul for DELAYING returning to the floor. Merely returning to the floor during playing action is NOT in itself illegal; it is the DELAYING of the return which is the offense. If returning during playing action (as the silly ruling in 10.3.3SitB says) was truly illegal it would be impossible for an inbounder to return to the floor after making the throw-in pass. Nor could any player who dove into the third row to save a ball from going OOB return to the floor since this is certainly during playing action. That is why I maintain that the reason given for the technical foul in that case play is incorrect, and also why I wrote, "The RULES BOOK does not say, nor has it in the past said, that returning to the floor during playing action is a player technical foul." Perhaps I should have added the following additional sentence when making my previous post. The RULES BOOK states that DELAYING returning to the floor is a technical foul. 10.3.3SitB could have given that as a reason and I would have accepted it. ================================================== Lastly, I still must inquire if IMMEDIATELY returning to the floor protects players from receiving any penalty after being OOB during any dead ball. So, if in either of the examples given above (a & b), the players who went and sat on the bench during the dead ball, stand up and immediately return inbounds as the officials make the ball live have they broken any rule? If you say no, then players may go sit on their bench during any dead ball as long as they return immediately upon the game resuming. That seems wrong to me as players can't even sit on their bench during a 30-second time-out. [Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 12th, 2005 at 05:57 AM]
|
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005, 09:28am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree with you that it might be the case book that's wrong and that, if it is, it won't be the first time. I just wish that you had mentioned it early in the thread or in your answer.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
