Player runs on to court

[deecee]

legal T -- but bad T in a sense it should be avoided when you have 3 sets of eyes to count the players and all 3 sets miss that there are 4 instead of 5 for one team. but its a good T

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by deecee

legal T -- but bad T in a sense it should be avoided when you have 3 sets of eyes to count the players and all 3 sets miss that there are 4 instead of 5 for one team. but its a good T

Thanks. I felt the same way that it could've been avoided. But is there a specific rule that this T was warranted.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Thanks. I felt the same way that it could've been avoided. But is there a specific rule that this T was warranted.

Yes there is.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Thanks. I felt the same way that it could've been avoided. But is there a specific rule that this T was warranted.

There sure is. It's NCAA Rule 10-3-9a.

A substitute shall not enter the playing court without reporting to
the scorers, without the substitute’s name appearing on the pregame
squad list or without being beckoned onto the playing court by an
official (unless during an intermission).

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

There sure is. It's NCAA Rule 10-3-9a.

Okay, I saw that but the player who ran on was not a substitute. He was one of the orignal 5 prior to the timeout. He was not replacing anyone.

[deecee]

doesnt matter -- he was on the bench when the play started so he is bench personnel -- and he illegaly entered the game.

you asked a question you got an answer you are not happy with -- as far as we are concerned he is a sub -- for the invisible 5th player.

however as for this T -- I dont know if its direct on the player AND indirect on the coach -- one of the other guys can comment on the technical administration and who gets credit for the directs/indirects.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by deecee

you asked a question you got an answer you are not happy with -- as far as we are concerned he is a sub -- for the invisible 5th player.

I am happy with any answer I get; that is why I enjoy posting and reading situations here.

Reading the definition of a "substitute" did not satisfy my own resolve because I did not think the player fit the definition. I only ask because the player did not replace anyone on the floor.

I do like your clarification of the player being "bench personnel." I guess that would be the solution I was looking for.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by deecee

doesnt matter -- he was on the bench when the play started so he is bench personnel -- and he illegaly entered the game.

you asked a question you got an answer you are not happy with -- as far as we are concerned he is a sub -- for the invisible 5th player.

Put me down for not being happy with the answer either. It's completely wrong. The technical foul is for failure to have all five players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. You can't have a freaking substitution "T" when there is NO freaking substitution. The NFHS cite is rule 10-1-9 and case play 10.1.9 is the exact same play. I'm too damn lazy to look up the NCAA equivalent, but their rule is the same. It's a team technical foul in NFHS with no indirect to the head coach.

Deecee, you really should open up a rulebook before you spout off.

[deecee]

well i got the T right -- just the wrong reason

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Put me down for not being happy with the answer either. It's completely wrong. The technical foul is for failure to have all five players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. You can't have a freaking substitution "T" when there is NO freaking substitution. The NFHS cite is rule 10-1-9 and case play 10.1.9 is the exact same play. I'm too damn lazy to look up the NCAA equivalent, but their rule is the same. It's a team technical foul in NFHS with no indirect to the head coach.

Deecee, you really should open up a rulebook before you spout off.

And thank you for your answer as well. That's what I thought about it not being a "substitution" violation but was unsure. I'll try to find it in the NCAA rulebook as well.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Put me down for not being happy with the answer either. It's completely wrong. The technical foul is for failure to have all five players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. You can't have a freaking substitution "T" when there is NO freaking substitution. The NFHS cite is rule 10-1-9 and case play 10.1.9 is the exact same play. I'm too damn lazy to look up the NCAA equivalent, but their rule is the same. It's a team technical foul in NFHS with no indirect to the head coach.

Deecee, you really should open up a rulebook before you spout off.

And besides, Deecee, we just had a thread about this less than a week ago.