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?

If this was all realized before the ball was put in, you should not have anything. I would just tell the team they have four players and they need to get the fifth player onto the court and go on. If play had already started when the player left the court than that is another story all together. It would be a technical for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Peace

Yes - its a violation.

This years POE in NFHS speaks to players leaving the court for "unauthorized reasons". This year to increase its calling it was reduced to a team turnover - a violation.

In your case it was the defense that left the court. Still a violation.

I suggest the proper handling would be: Let team A complete their charge to the basket and have their offense conclude. If team control was lost by A - Whistle and turnover back to A, "Leaving the Court on B and look to the scoresers table for a substitute.

Equally: If the departing player's motivation appeared in judgement to be intentional to try and bait the referee to "stop the offensive play" your looking at a potential unsportsmalike T.

Ref Daddy is right.
 

Hello Rut??? :confused: Too much New Year's celebration or what?
You certainly are aware of the rule change for this season that altered the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason from a technical foul to a mere violation.
I'm baffled that you wrote that post here in 2006!


2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
...
9-3-2 New Changed the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to a violation from a technical foul.

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS
...
LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

Do a little more study.
 

This is not the same situation as trying to get around the screen. We have a player just leaving the court for no reason at all or the reasons that the rule was changed to call a technical foul. All the examples the NF uses for the new rule deal with getting around a screen, not leaving the court during play to gain some kind of advantage.

According to your point of view I am going to assume that you are going to stop play with a violation, give the ball back to A and then continue play with throw-in? Where does it say to do that?

<b>"Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage."</b>

<b>Casebook play 10.1.9</b> fits this much more than you are describing. The player did not return to the court in a proper manner after a timeout, not because they wanted to avoid a screen or during play to get an advantage. They left the court because there was confusion as to whether they were supposed to be on the court in the first place. This is a totally different situation than trying to avoid a screen. I think you have read this new rule so much you forgot to read other situations that might apply.

Peace

Re: Do a little more study.
 

Talk about grasping for straws.

If you are gonna say study them closer at least use 10.3.3 situation B.

Lame.

Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

Actually I was going to use that play as an example but that would be projecting something onto the original question. Case play 10.3.3 fits just as well as any other play in this situation.

The problem is this situation is not covered at all by the NF (at least in their casebook). I do not see myself stopping play just to give the ball back to the team with the ball and only call a violation. Either I would call nothing, which is why I said suggested to do nothing in the first post.

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.

Peace

This is directly from the NF Website.
 

This is what the NF says to do about a similar issue.

<b>SITUATION 11:</b> 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. RULING: B5’s intentional violation should be ignored and A1’s activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. <b>The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (9-3-2; 10-1-8)</b>

Peace

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

<b>SITUATION 12:</b> Team B has just scored to go up by three points with time running out in the fourth quarter. Player A1 inbounds the ball to A2 close to the sideline of Team B’s bench. A2 releases a three-point try just prior to the horn sounding. Substitute B7 leaves the bench area, enters the court and blocks the shot. RULING: B7 shall be charged with two technical fouls and ejected. One technical foul is assessed for entering the court without permission and one for unsporting conduct. Any member of Team A may shoot the four free throws for the technical fouls. The results of these free throws will determine if the game is over or going into overtime. <b>COMMENT: Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act. (10-4-1; 10-4-2)</b>

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

RULE 10 SECTION 3

ART. 3 . . . Delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

RULE 10 SECTION 1

ART. 9 . . . Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission.

In this play the player DID RETURN was never LEGALLY OOB,they left the floor for an unauthorized reason.

RULE 9 SECTION 3

ART. 2 . . . A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

If you call a violation, Team B in this case benefits from a violation. You would have to stop play to call a violation which for all you know was planned. The NF has two interpretations that suggest it is a Technical foul when a defensive team benefits from a violation. Now if you have some play that says this is just a violation then I will go along with it. That is clearly not what the NF is saying on their website.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

You pull a case play talking about a last second tactic and then ignore this:

If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior.

There is nothing in the play in question that suggests an intentional unsporting act.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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.;)

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
 

It does not say to delay a call then give the ball back to Team A. Do you have anything that even suggests that? 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. The NF does not say wait until Team B gets the ball, they say give a violation.

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. Based on the NF's previous plays and situations, just a violation <b>in my opinion</b> (based on the information that is given from the NF at this time) is not appropriate.

Peace

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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

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?

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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? :rolleyes:

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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.

No Advantage
 

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!!

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

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.

Re: No Advantage
 

Hey, I already said that! :D

If you are referring to the NFHS Preseason guide, then no there is nothing in there which says to delay or temporarily ignore the violation.

In fact, just the opposite message is stressed.

There are five play rulings in that guide. In three of the play rulings (1,4,5) the wording "The official shall call a violation on XY as soon as XY steps out of bounds" appears. The violation is also called immediately in play 2 although that wording is not used in the ruling. Only play 3 is handled differently because that play is not a violation at all, it involves a technical foul for a player delaying his return to the court after making a throw-in.

There was something official somewhere that if A1 was on a fast break and had a clear path to the basket, and B1 stepped oob, to hold the violation call until A1's play was completed. I don't remember where it was, but it's out there. IIRC it didn't talk about advantage/disadvantage, but the concept was there, that B can't use the violation to take away an obvious advantage.

2005-06 NFHS Interp Situation 11 posted on the website, which Rut quoted back on the first page of this thread.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a little more study.
 

Where is the rule that suggest what I said was wrong. I was not talking about a screen. I was talking about a player leaving the court in total confusion. Do you have a play reference or anything other than, "you are wrong?"

This play was more closely tied to the original question. Remember the original question. No one asked what happen when a player runs around on the baseline, they asked what would happen on a cluster f$%k where players are running on and off the court. That play fits the situation more than the new rule which does not address this play at all when you look at the website.

It is relevant to me. It is relevant because it is more closely tied to the original question. Once again, show me an interpretation that says this specific situation is just a violation and when you call the violation?

Well I do not recall that I asked you for what was relevant or not relevant. You are not the person that I have to answer to either way. It is relevant to me until I hear other wording that will change this situation.

I know this, we blame officials for when there are 4 players on the court or there are 6 or more on the court from one team when it is preventable. We do that all the time. When officials are in a hurry to put the ball in play, those things tend to happen. So yes, it would be the officials fault and if I was on the game I would take full responsibility for that happening. It should never happen if we are taking our time and not in a hurry. When you just throw the ball in play and everyone is not on the court and ready to go, this is what happens. We should not be putting the ball in play when there is chaos.

It is very fair. I can talk about anything I like or say anything is relevant. You told me what is not relevant and for some reason if this happen to me or anyone in this state I do not recall anyone is going to call you and find out. So yes this is very relevant when you are trying to make a stab at me because I said something you did not agree with.

Secondly, I have talked about this rule and only the rule. For some reason you came into the picture and just wanted to throw stones. You did not come here to add to the discussion because you do not like me. That is your MO and that is why you went through the entire Kentucky/Rupp discussion in the previous thread and I was not even the person that brought up anything about Rupp or what I thought about that topic. That also was not the topic of that thread but when it fits what you want to talk about that is relevant but what I mention is "changing the subject."

Are you so afraid of race issues that when someone just disagreed with your point of view it had to be about race? I did not disagree with you in that Rupp discussion because of a race situation, I disagreed with you because the people that were around at that time said that Rupp was a racist based on his actions and things he said. Now you are trying to tell me I change the subject and that entire discussion was you changing the subject from the original post. So what is your excuse?

Peace

I look at this rule like the football rule the NF created about 3 or 4 years ago. The NF in Football created a rule that said a penalty by the opponent of a scoring team could choose to take the penalty on the succeeding spot (Extra point, Kick off for example). We all knew why the NF created the rule, but there were loopholes in rules and interpretations. Even in that case the NF had two different opposing interpretations. One was on the website; the other was in their Official's Quarterly. Individual states came up with their own interpretation to remedy the situation. The very next year the NF changed the wording and made it very clear what their ruling was. The NF even had to change the wording in a couple of areas so that there was no conflict in the Football Rules.

This rule strikes me as the same situation in basketball. The NF has not addressed the situations where the defense has violated this rule and what to do about it. Even in my state when we tried to clarify some situations, they were confused. It is also clear that this rule was changed to deal with on major situation and that is why they said, "Typically this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside of the end line and returns to the other side of the court free of their defender." It is clear they were thinking of one type of situation and did not think through where other aspects of this rule might be misinterpreted. The more I read this the more confused I get about this play. I do not see how you get an advantage by running out of bounds on defense and we should call a violation. If they do not want it called, the NF should make that clear. All we are doing is debating the situation with no official word from the NF.

I agree with Camron. The penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason was CHANGED from a T to a violation (not modified, ammended or otherwise tweaked to meet specific circumstances). Absent some type of related unsportsmanlike conduct, the only possible call is a violation. There is no longer any basis in the rules for assessing a T for this.

While I agree it would have been ideal if one of the officials noticed it right away when the player left the court and immediately whistled the violation, in the reality of a game situation I can see how it could get missed initially.