Is this against the rules??

[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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Ref Daddy]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge
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

Hello Rut??? 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.

[JRutledge]

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?

"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."

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, 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

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by JRutledge
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?

"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."

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, 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

Talk about grasping for straws.

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

Lame.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by blindzebra


Talk about grasping for straws.

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

Lame.

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

[JRutledge]

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

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. RULING: B5Â’s intentional violation should be ignored and A1Â’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. 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)

Peace

[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 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 BÂ’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. 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)

Peace

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by blindzebra


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.

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

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by blindzebra


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.

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

[blindzebra]

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

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

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 in my opinion (based on the information that is given from the NF at this time) is not appropriate.

Peace