Is this against the rules??

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge
It would be a technical for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Rut,
I hear your argument about not stopping the play when the defense with benefit from the violation. I definitely agree with it and so does the NFHS as evidenced by the interps you quoted and intent and purpose of the rules paragraph at the beginning of the rules book. However, what you posted above is clearly incorrect given the rule change this season.
If the player's leaving is an act of deception or a purposeful attempt to get the official to call a violation which would benefit his team, that is unsporting and I have no problem with a technical foul for unsporting conduct being called as NFHS interp #11 says.
However, an official CANNOT charge "a technical foul for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" as you wrote above. That is flat out wrong by rule this season.

I certainly don't see how leaving because the kid thought he should be out or that his team had too many players should be considered unsporting conduct.

In the original situation, you do not have an unsporting act. I would stop the game and call a violation on the defense unless the offensive team was making a scoring play. In that case, I would wait until the scoring play was completed and then make the call. An official can't just ingore this forever because one team is now playing with only four players due to one kid walking off the court illegally.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

All the situations were Team B leaves the court the NF says to penalize it with a T when they will benefit from violating the rules.

No, what the NFHS said was to penalize with a T when the action is done purposely with the intent to benefit from the violation call.

Originally posted by JRutledge
I look at this situation when they created this rule they also did not consider all the situations that might possibly take place with the rule change. I know we debated it when the rules came out before the season. This is one of these situations where this very specific situation has a vague answer either way.

I agree. The NFHS really didn't think this one through.

Originally posted by JRutledge
Based on the NF's previous plays and situations, just a violation in my opinion (based on the information that is given from the NF at this time) is not appropriate.

I don't share that opinion. This player did nothing in an attempt to gain an advantage. He never even returned to the court!

[JRutledge]

Nevada,

I was not trying to quote the rule word for word, I was giving a ruling. No matter how I said it, the result is still the same. You still have a T as an option. I really do not care how you came to that conclusion other than that is what the NF seems to want us to do it that way or gives us the option to do rule that way.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
No, what the NFHS said was to penalize with a T when the action is done purposely with the intent to benefit from the violation call.

That is still a judgment call or decision on your part as an official. You have to decide whether this was done on purpose as you would have to decide if Team B violated on purpose on a FT in order to get an advantage. Not all of our decisions are very clear to everyone. An official could have overheard a coach suggesting this. That is why I have said that I probably would call nothing at all until that player entered the court with Team A with the ball.

Originally posted by JRutledge
I don't share that opinion. This player did nothing in an attempt to gain an advantage. He never even returned to the court!

This is why I used the words "in my opinion" in this response. I understand completely that other people will possibly disagree.

Peace

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Did you miss the "or technical foul?" I did not say it was out of the question to call a violation by anyone. I said that calling a violation is something I would not do. You can do what you want. I just do not think that would be right to the offense that are playing a man down and stop the game because we have a player that does not know what they want to do after a substitution. That was the point I made in the first response. So if you want to just call a violation you have that right. I just think if I am going to do anything I am calling a T in this case. Once again, taking our time and being preventative is the best policy so we are sure who is supposed to be on the court. What is the hurry to put the ball in play?

Peace

Correct me if I'm wrong, JRut, but both teams had 5 players on the floor. Are you going to fault the ref for putting the ball into play? For heaven's sake, what ref goes around and asks the players if they are sure they are supposed to be in the game? All we do is count and make sure we have the right number of players in the game. I don't see this as the ref's fault.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by mplagrow
Correct me if I'm wrong, JRut, but both teams had 5 players on the floor. Are you going to fault the ref for putting the ball into play? For heaven's sake, what ref goes around and asks the players if they are sure they are supposed to be in the game? All we do is count and make sure we have the right number of players in the game. I don't see this as the ref's fault.

Yes, if you are in a hurry. A situation like this is not likely going to happen if you take your time and you make sure everyone is out on the court and you know they are ready. When you get in a hurry things like this happen. It is always considered the official's fault whether you like it or not when there are more than 5 players on a team or less than 5 players on the team. Make sure everyone is ready and you will not likely have a player confused and run off the court. Yes, officials play a big role in these situations.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by VaCoach
After a time out, both teams have 5 players on the court and Team A inbounds the ball and is attacking there basket. All of a sudden a player on Team B leaves the court and returns to the bench and sits down, leaving Team B with only 4 players. (Reason why was later explained by the coach, she was to be replaced during the time out and when she realized she had gone back in, she thought they might have 6 players on the court and she thought she better leave before being detected.) Question: Is this a violation of any type? If so, what is the penalty?

Coach, the officials would certainly be justified in calling a violation. Personally, I wouldn't make that call. The team has certainly placed themselves at a disadvantage by having only 4 players on the floor. Why should they be penalized further?

[Camron Rust]

There is nothing unsporting whatsoever about this situation and the only option is a violation. The violation, being on the defense, can be delayed if calling it would disadvantage A (per the NFHS interpretation on the matter) but in no case would it be a T.

Going so far as to blame the officials for being in a hurry is utter BS. 5+5 on the floor and no one heading to/from the bench/table area is all the officials could be expected to observe. Someone heading off the floor after the ball is in play is beyond their control...unless, after every whistle, we're to ask the coaches if they have the right players in the game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by mplagrow

Correct me if I'm wrong, JRut, but both teams had 5 players on the floor. Are you going to fault the ref for putting the ball into play? For heaven's sake, what ref goes around and asks the players if they are sure they are supposed to be in the game? All we do is count and make sure we have the right number of players in the game. I don't see this as the ref's fault.

He's just trying to change the subject so he doesn't have to admit he blew the call in his original post.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
He's just trying to change the subject so he doesn't have to admit he blew the call in his original post.

What was I wrong about Cameron? The rule change was to focus on moving around a screen which was a disaster when they made such a big deal the year before. Now they changed the rule to what everyone thought it should have been and forgot they had case plays and rulings that covered other aspects for players running off the court that were not to avoid a screen. Before it was clear those situations were a T. That is not changing the subject, that is addressing the flaw in their rule which I would not be surprised will be clarified next year.

You just do not want to admit I was right now like you do not want to admit I was right about what people thought of Adolph Rupp while the man was alive. The Texas Western players were interviewed recently on ESPN Classic Now show about the movie Glory Road and they talked openly about Rupp and the things he said like (5 Black players could not beat white players) and the way they felt about it when they kicked Kentucky's behind in 1966. Rupp not a racist, yeah right. Is that something you do not want to talk about anymore?

Peace

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by JRutledge

What was I wrong about Cameron? The rule change was to focus on moving around a screen which was a disaster when they made such a big deal the year before. Now they changed the rule to what everyone thought it should have been and forgot they had case plays and rulings that covered other aspects for players running off the court that were not to avoid a screen. Before it was clear those situations were a T. That is not changing the subject, that is addressing the flaw in their rule which I would not be surprised will be clarified next year.

You just do not want to admit I was right now like you do not want to admit I was right about what people thought of Adolph Rupp while the man was alive. The Texas Western players were interviewed recently on ESPN Classic Now show about the movie Glory Road and they talked openly about Rupp and the things he said like (5 Black players could not beat white players) and the way they felt about it when they kicked Kentucky's behind in 1966. Rupp not a racist, yeah right. Is that something you do not want to talk about anymore?

Peace

Except the case plays you cite are about players NOT RETURNING to the floor and not about a player LEAVING the floor.

The only play that deals with a defensive player leaving is about a deliberate act to stop an advantage by the offense at the end of the game.

[VaCoach]

I see no advantage to the defense for playing with 4 players. The player just made a mistake and thought he was not suppose to be on the court and went to the bench. Continue play until next dead ball and then get Team B to put one more player on the court. Hopefully Team A scored on the "power play" and there is no reason to penalize anyone!!

[JRutledge]

Here is the problem with what you are saying. The rules state that you must play with 5 players if you have that amount of players available. So you cannot play with less than 5 players according to the rules at hand. Before this year it was very clear that this was a Technical foul and there were interpretations to back that up. I called on of these Ts long time ago on a Girl's Varsity game. Then the rule states that we have at the very least a violation or a Technical foul despite what others would like to say. Also what happens if the player is off the court and now realizes they are supposed to be out there and just runs onto the court? According to 10.3.3 Situation B you are going to have to give a technical foul for a player entering the court during playing action. So we have to probably do something. You cannot have a "power play" unless all players foul out and you can only play with less than 5 according to 3.1.1. So either you stop the clock and give the ball back to the team with the ball after you get the proper number on the court. Give a T on Team B because they did not play with the proper number or for leaving the court and taking advantage of a rule by stopping the game. Or you hope and pray that the kid does not enter the court where you will have no choice but to give a T. Or you could act like nothing happen and hope no one notices anything. I am not going to lose sleep over it either way. I just think the NF needs to correct this situation. At least the NCAA only says this is a violation when the player is the first to touch the ball.

Ultimately this is a situation for the Referee to rule on something that is not specifically covered under the rules. So you might find a few different results on this play depending on who is on that game.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by JRutledge

What was I wrong about Cameron? The rule change was to focus on moving around a screen which was a disaster when they made such a big deal the year before. Now they changed the rule to what everyone thought it should have been and forgot they had case plays and rulings that covered other aspects for players running off the court that were not to avoid a screen. Before it was clear those situations were a T. That is not changing the subject, that is addressing the flaw in their rule which I would not be surprised will be clarified next year.

What were you wrong about??? Let me count them...

Originally posted by JRutledge
It would be a technical for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Wrong penalty for this rule...it is a violation, not a T.

Originally posted by JRutledge
Casebook play 10.1.9 fits this much more than you are describing. The player did not return to the court in a proper manner after a timeout...
[/b]

Has nothing to do with the play being discussed. The player did return but left during a live ball.

Originally posted by JRutledge

SITUATION 11: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5, running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
[/b]

Not relevant...in this situation, the player intentionally went OOB in an attempt to draw a violation to gain an advantage (an unsporting act) and a violation alone would not penalize the action. In the play being discussed, the player was not attempting to gain an advantage.

Originally posted by JRutledge

Here is another play that covers some similar situation and does not say just call a violation.

SITUATION 12: Team B has just scored ... Substitute B7 leaves the bench area, enters the court and blocks the shot. RULING:...
[/b]

Again, not relavant...bench personnel delibertately interfering with a play is hardly the same as a confused player leaving the floor. T for leaving the bench and the unsporting act of blocking the shot.

Originally posted by JRutledge

Here is also the other rub to this, do not let this happen. Take your time to make sure all the players are on the court and you will not have to worry about calling anything.

Now blame it on the officials when it is OBVIOUS they started play with 5 players on the floor.

Originally posted by JRutledge

You just do not want to admit I was right now like you do not want to admit I was right about what people thought of Adolph Rupp while the man was alive. The Texas Western players were interviewed recently on ESPN Classic Now show about the movie Glory Road and they talked openly about Rupp and the things he said like (5 Black players could not beat white players) and the way they felt about it when they kicked Kentucky's behind in 1966. Rupp not a racist, yeah right. Is that something you do not want to talk about anymore?

Peace

What does that have to do with this discussion? Or are you trying to turn yet another discussion where you've made unsupportable statements into a racial debate?

It's your typical MO, If you can't argue the points of the discussion or find support for your erroneous statements, distract everyone with another topic or with insults.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Re-read your case play and figure out what temporarily ignored could mean.

It means you can wait until team A is not disadvantaged to call the violation...like when team B gets the ball.

This type of situation was covered at our interpretation meeting. IIRC, interpreter said that in cases where this is likely to occur (fast break) you temporarily ignore the violation until A shoots or looses the ball, then call the violation and then give the ball to A...whether the shot was made or missed.

I can't find my copy but I think this play was even covered that 6-8 page Officials Guide booklet published by the NFHS.