What's the call?

[rainmaker]

Meantime, I'm calling it by the interp that's used around here. And, Daryl, if you ever are working a tourney here in Oregon, I suggest you do the same. It's not a cut and dried rule, and the "culture" here is much different. If you call this a T, you'll get laughed or booted off the court.

[Xavier]

Here are my thoughts thus far. I still agree the official who gave my team the technical foul. I didn't agree during the game. But after the game he showed me in the case book. I do not have a case book in hand, but from what I remember, the case book had the same exact situation and a technical was administered in the case book.

Just to clarify.

1. B5 did not run out onto the floor during a live ball. He ran to the table after the ball was made live with B only have 4 players on the floor.

2. The trail official who administered the ball blew the play dead. The lead official came over, discuss the rule with the offficial who blew the play dead and administered the technical after explaining it to both coaches.

3. After the technical was administered, and I'm not quite sure but I believe B5 had to wait until the ball was dead again to return or maybe he return after the technical. I do not remember.

But either way, the technical which was administered to my team was the correct call. The case book stated that 5 players from both teams must be on the floor unless a team has a reason for using 3 or 4 players (injury, fouled out, etc). If there are available players on the bench, the coach must play 5 players. A coach cannot play only 4 players to gain an advantage. An advantage such as a coach who knows he has 3 players with 4 fouls on the bench. He then tries to get away with only using 4 players on the floor who are not in foul trouble. That is reason why the technical foul was called.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by Xavier
3. After the technical was administered, and I'm not quite sure but I believe B5 had to wait until the ball was dead again to return or maybe he return after the technical. I do not remember.

Do you mean to tell me that after the T was administered, the officials left your player late returning at the table while they allowed the other team to run 5 on 4 against you until the next dead ball. PLEASE say THIS didn't happen.

[ctpfive]

Wouldn't this fall under the category of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by sfriede
Wouldn't this fall under the category of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason?

The player left the court because of a time-out. I don't think that qualifies as an "unauthorized" ruling.

[blindzebra]

All I have to say is I really hate calling T's for something that the officials should have prevented.

The ball should never be administered with 9 or 11 players...10 if it's 6 on 4...A player leaves the floor and another comes in, or a 6th comes on that is a T.

It should not be when the officials screw up too.

[Xavier]

blindzebra

I agree. If the officials screw up on the play and we end up with 11 or 9 on the floor, then I do not believe that the call should be a technical foul. In the case that a coach intentionally holds a player on the bench or for whatever reason decides to play 6, then a technical should be administered.

I honestly can't remember if he let my player enter the game after the technical was administered.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

JR -- That play deals with a substition error (A5 left in the mistaken belief that a sub had replaced A5).

The play in this thread deals with a TO. It *might* be a different situation.

iirc (I don't have the books handy), there's a play where B is not ready to play after the TO. The officials use the resumption-of-play procedure and give A the ball. Then, 4 B players return to the court. The 5th either stays on the bench or comes in later (I forget). In this situation, it's an immediate T -- once the team returns, all must return at approximately the same time.

One could ask whether the NFHS intends for the two situations to be treated differently.

but one guesses they just aren't being paid enough to make themselves readily, sensibly available. Yuh think it has to do with 'no competition'?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Lotto

I don't think you want most refs baring anything...

Under the new rule, an immediate T.

[dhodges007]

OK I have to add my 2 pennies.

First off X this wouldn't happen in most of our games because we wouldn't begin without 10 players on the floor. So there wouldn't need to be a discussion whether to T or not to T.

JMHO

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Meantime, I'm calling it by the interp that's used around here. And, Daryl, if you ever are working a tourney here in Oregon, I suggest you do the same. It's not a cut and dried rule, and the "culture" here is much different. If you call this a T, you'll get laughed or booted off the court.

Then don't come down to NV. We don't have any culture here. We just do it right. Daryl is 100% correct on this rule. It was a team technical foul four years ago and still is today. JR, your ruling would apply if this were not following a TO or intermission, but just some regular dead ball period. Since this is following a TO what Daryl cited is the relevant rule.

While the case book play does have the 5th player returning to the court, I don't believe that this is necessary by the exact wording of the rules book (10-1-9):
"Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."


The bottom line is that the other four players came back at a certain time and the fifth one didn't return to the court at approximately that same time.
TEAM TECHNICAL FOUL

Daryl any time you wish to work in NV just let me know.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Then don't come down to NV. We don't have any culture here. We just do it right. Daryl is 100% correct on this rule. It was a team technical foul four years ago and still is today. JR, your ruling would apply if this were not following a TO or intermission, but just some regular dead ball period. Since this is following a TO what Daryl cited is the relevant rule.

While the case book play does have the 5th player returning to the court, I don't believe that this is necessary by the exact wording of the rules book (10-1-9):
"Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."


The bottom line is that the other four players came back at a certain time and the fifth one didn't return to the court at approximately that same time.
TEAM TECHNICAL FOUL

Daryl any time you wish to work in NV just let me know.

Lemme know when you get a definitive answer from the NFHS rules committee, not a Nevadaref or Daryl H. Long opinion.

Until then, I have my own opinion.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
While the case book play does have the 5th player returning to the court, I don't believe that this is necessary by the exact wording of the rules book (10-1-9):
"Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission."

I think this is a case where we can reasonably ask what the purpose and intent of the rule is. And I'm pretty sure that the purpose and intent of the rule is to prevent a team from intentionally holding a player out. This is usually done so they can sneak the player back on the court later to gain an advantage.

But even if it's done for a nobler purpose (in a gesture of good sportsmanship to play 4-on-4), we know that it's not legal. But even in that case, withholding the player is intentional.

I don't think the rule is intended to penalize a team who unintentionally puts itself at a disadvantage. That just doesn't make any sense at all to me. We have other examples of things that by a strict reading of the rule should be a technical foul, but b/c of genuine confusion on the part of the offender, the technical is not assessed. (Taking the ball OOB after your team has just scored, for example.)

I would not assess a T in this situation if the player stayed at the table and waited for the next opportunity to sub in. This is clearly the result of confusion and only puts the offending team at a disadvantage.

[lucky1313]

Wouldn't this fall under the situtation that we shouldn't have put the ball into play until we had the five on the floor, unless they were actually delaying their return to the floor. I try not to put the ball into play after a timeout with six players on the floor, and I try not to put the ball into play with only four on the floor either.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by lucky1313
Wouldn't this fall under the situtation that we shouldn't have put the ball into play until we had the five on the floor, unless they were actually delaying their return to the floor.

Yes, Lucky. That is obviously the best procedure, as others have said. But the fact is, that the officials didn't use the best procedure and there are only four players on the floor. So the question is about the best way to resolve that problem. Penalize? Or let them play with 4 until the next opportunity to sub? I vote for the latter.