Player runs on to court
 

NCAA Mens

After a 30-sec timeout, team A has 5 players on the floor ready to inbound the ball. Team B has 4 players on the floor. As A1 inbounds the ball to A2, B5 still tying his shoe on the bench runs on the floor to play defense. All players on the floor were the original players before the timeout.

Official calls technical foul for illegal substitution. Coach B does not argue the T. Game goes on.

Question: Was a T for "illegal substitution" the right call? The play looked weird enough to deserve a T but did it really deserve one?

B5 ran on the court with 4 players but was not a substitute. I tried to look up this situation in the rulebook book but could not find it. Please help me clarify my mind.

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.

Yes there is.

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.

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.

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.

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 <b>NO</b> 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.

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

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.

According to Men's and Women's NCAA rules, this is NOT a technical foul. The fifth player may legally enter the court without being required to report to the scorer so long as deception is not involved and the player was otherwise legally in the game.

According to NFHS rules, it is a technical foul.

How about 10-3-18? Purposely delaying his return to the playing court after legally being out of bounds?

Rules citation? I looked quickly through the NCAA rule book and couldn't really find anything like the above.

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

This is an Men's and Women's NCAA Interpretation (See Rules for Refs: Basketball 2006-2007). This book is put out by Referee magazine and highlights all the rule differences between NFHS, Men's, and Women's rulebooks.

In the NFHS rules, this situation is listed as a technical foul. In the NCAA rules, it is not listed. The only one that comes close is (10.3.18), a technical for PURPOSELY delaying return, which, according to the original post, did not happen.

Overall, this is NOT a technical foul in the college game.

Overall, I completely disagree with you. This is <b>NOT</b> an NCAA Mens and Womens interpretation as it was <b>NEVER</b> put out by the NCAA rulesmakers. <b>NOTHING</b> put out by Referee magazine is <b>EVER</b> an official ruling. Referee magazine is noted for putting out completely wrong rulings of their own, and then having to retract them in later issues. Note the lack of the official NCAA logo on the book put out by Referee also.

Please see the NCAA <b>rulebook</b>. That <b>is</b> official. The rules differences between NCAA and NFHS rules are in Appendix V on pages 188-191. There is <b>NO</b> mention anywhere <b>in the NCAA rulebook</b> of there being any difference between NCAA and NFHS rules when it comes to the play being discussed. Also see the NFHS <b>rulebook</b>. The NCAA/NFHS rules differences are outlined in charts on pages 78&79 of the FED rulebook. Again, there is <b>NO</b> mention of there being any difference between NFHS and NCAA rules in those charts.

Overall, I'd say that it is isn't definitively covered in the NCAA rulebook, but seeing that both the NCAA and NFHS <b>rulebooks</b> do <b>NOT</b> list it as being a difference, it should be called the same way as the definitive NFHS ruling.