What's the call?

[Xavier]

I'm new to the forum so please bare with me. I've been officiating for ten years (off and on) but more recently a coach. This situation happen about 3 or 4 years ago while I was the assistant coach of a boys JV team. I thought I knew the rule but didn't and was shocked when I found out what the rule was. Before you check your case book or talk to another official, post YOUR response.

The game is being officiated by a 2 man crew. Both officials have less than 5 years experience. In the 3rd quarter of the game, team "B" went on a 10 - 2 run to tie the game. Team "A" head coach calls timeout near the division line while team "A" has the ball. Both teams return from the timeout onto the floor. The official administers the ball near the division line. As soon as the ball has been inbounded, team "A" coach realizes he's missing his 5th player. He then yells at the player to go to the table to check in. Upon seeing this, the lead official realizes that team "A" only has 4 players on the floor and blows his whistle.

What is the correct call at this point? I thought I knew the answer to this situation until the official had shown me in the rule book the correct call.

This should be in the case book. Either way, I will post the answer in a few days. Just curious to know what most other officials would do in this situation.

[JRutledge]

Is what the correct call? What did the officials do?

Peace

[Daryl H. Long]

Welcome to the board.

Technical foul for not having all 5 players return to the floor at the same time.

BTW: It already is in the Case Book.

PS: waiting a few days to post what you were "told" is the correct answer is way too long. By that time this thread will be buried on page 6.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Welcome to the board.

Technical foul for not having all 5 players return to the floor at the same time.

BTW: It already is in the Case Book.

PS: waiting a few days to post what you were "told" is the correct answer is way too long. By that time this thread will be buried on page 6.

I don't think so, Daryl. The sitch in the case book has the fifth player running onto the floor to catch a pass. She didn't wait at the table until beckoned. I think it's a no-call, until the first dead ball. This ref stopped the game and let the player in, I think, but he sure didn't have to. And I don't think it's a technical foul.

[Xavier]

Actually rainmaker, Daryl made the right call. I think he may have cheated though!! :-) That's ok.

The correct call is a technical foul. The reason for the technical is because it seen in the same light as having 6 players on the floor. A team may try to gain an advantage if a coach decides that his bench players do not deserve to play or just are not good enough to play and his best player or a good player is in foul trouble. So in an attempt for coaches to sit a player to gain an advantage from a personal fouls standpoint alone, the rule is that a technical fould should be administered.

The officials did a great job of the game and administering the technical foul. When the official made his called I knew he was wrong!! I asked him if he happen to have his case book with him and he actually did. The young official told me that he was 98% sure he made the right call. I told him that this was his 2% that he screwed up on. Boy did I eat my words when after the game he came up and showed me the rule. He actually made the right call within seconds of the situation happening. I was impressed!

[Edited by Xavier on Dec 15th, 2005 at 12:49 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Xavier
Actually rainmaker, Daryl made the right call. I think he may have cheated though!! :-) That's ok.

The correct call is a technical foul. The reason for the technical is because it seen in the same light as having 6 players on the floor. A team may try to gain an advantage if a coach decides that his bench players do not deserve to play or just are not good enough to play and his best player or a good player is in foul trouble. So in an attempt for coaches to sit a player to gain an advantage from a personal fouls standpoint alone, the rule is that a technical fould should be administered.

Citation from the rule book, please?

[Daryl H. Long]

NF Rule 10-1-9.
NF Case 10-1-9.

The technical is not because of the advantage gained by B5 entering late AND catching a pass for an easy layup but simply because B5 entered late period and this is when the officials noticed her late entry.

If an official does not see B5 return late then no technical can be assessed.

Additionally, There was no reason for B5 to have to go to the table or to be beckoned on by an official. B5 was already a PLAYER, not a sub, so therefore was required by rule to return at the same time B1-B4 returned. Failure to do so is Team T.

The only reason Team B may be off the court legally delaying their return while Team A is in team control of a live ball with clock running is due to the resuming play procedure. The key to assessing the T has nothing to do with having a no-call and waiting until next dead ball. It hinges on the fact that once B1 enters the court all 4 remaining teammates are required to return immediatiely also.

Also, in the case it would have still been a T for delaying return following time-out even if A had rebounded their own shot or even if A still had the ball in their possession setting up a play.

BTW as I said, this is a Team technical not a player T on B5.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Dec 15th, 2005 at 01:18 AM]

[SMEngmann]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
NF Rule 10-1-9.
NF Case 10-1-9.

The technical is not because of the advantage gained by B5 entering late AND catching a pass for an easy layup but simply because B5 entered late period and this is when the officials noticed her late entry.

If an official does not see B5 return late then no technical can be assessed.

Additionally, There was no reason for B5 to have to go to the table or to be beckoned on by an official. B5 was already a PLAYEr, not a sub, so therefore was required by rule to return at the same time B1-B4 returned. Failure to do so is Team T.

Also, in the case it would have still been a T for delaying return following time-out even if A had rebounded their own shot or even if A still had the ball in their possession setting up a play.

BTW as I said, this is a Team technical not a player T on B5.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Dec 15th, 2005 at 01:08 AM]

But all the players DID return at approximately the same time as only 4 players participated. A 5th player never actually "returned" to the floor, but checked in. I agree with Rainmaker, no call and beckon the player at the next dead ball. A technical here makes absolutely no sense.

[Daryl H. Long]

SME,

Way to contradict yourself!

First you said ALL the players returned. I take ALL to mean 5 of them.

Then you said 4 went on the court and 1 player did not. Specifically, you said, "a 5th player never acually "returned" to the floor. That is what 10-1-9 actually does require---that all 5 actually RETURN
to the floor.

Players are either on the court (within the lines) or off the court (outside the lines). See player location 4-35.

Players do not report to the table, they are already in the game. Only substitutes are required to report (3-3-1).

All I care is the team must have 5 players within the lines and 5 must return at the same time following a timeout. Any more or less than 5 results in an immediate Team T.

That means B5 is somewhere outside the lines while the rest of his teammates are within the lines. I don't care whether he was at the scorer's table or why he went there, or still sitting on the bench the T still is given.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

All I care is the team must have 5 players within the lines and 5 must return at the same time following a timeout. Any more or less than 5 results in an immediate Team T.

That means B5 is somewhere outside the lines while the rest of his teammates are within the lines. I don't care whether he was at the scorer's table or why he went there, or still sitting on the bench the T still is given.

I disagree completely. It's not a "T" until the player actually comes on the court. And then, it's a player "T", not a team "T". See case book play 10.3.3SitB- "RULING: A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced.

Also see from a coupla days ago:
http://www.officialforum.com/thread/23609

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I disagree completely. It's not a "T" until the player actually comes on the court. And then, it's a player "T", not a team "T". See case book play 10.3.3SitB- "RULING: A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced.

Also see from a coupla days ago:
http://www.officialforum.com/thread/23609

The key to identify whether to apply 10-3-3 or 10-1-9 is to ascertain whether the foul was committed by a PLAYER or by a TEAM.

While I agree with the ruling given in case 10.3.3 Sit B as you state above is absolutely correct, it would be erroneous on my part to apply it to the situation as Xavier writes to start this thread. This thread is about a TEAM delaying his return to the court FOLLOWING A TIMEOUT.

The appropriate rule which addresses this very act and its penalty is rule 10-1-9. The last line of the ruling in the casebook states '..once a team responds, ALL players must enter the court at approximately the same time." No need to wait for player to enter before assessing this foul as this is not a player technical but a team technical.

In all other cases in which a charged time-out is not involved then the apropriate rule to apply is 10-3-3 which is a player technical.

[mj]

Here we go again...

Not a technical, sub in the 5th player the next time the clock stops.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I disagree completely. It's not a "T" until the player actually comes on the court. And then, it's a player "T", not a team "T". See case book play 10.3.3SitB- "RULING: A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced.

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.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Xavier
...please bare with me.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
[/B]

One could ask whether the NFHS intends for the two situations to be treated differently.
[/B][/QUOTE]And I wish one would, Bob. I get tired of arguing this one too.

It would be nice to have a definitive answer. Jmo, but I think that 10.3.3SitB is the closest thing that we've got to an answer right now.