New Interps Sitch #12

[rainmaker]

FrankHtown posted

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return, and he/she sprints onto the court and catches up with play. RULING: In (a), the officials shall stop play and assess a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out. The technical foul counts toward the team-foul count. In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court. COMMENT: Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage, teams are expected to return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out. The officials should have also followed the prescribed mechanics and counted the number of players on the court, ensuring each team has the legal number of players. (10-1-9; 10-3-3)

I'm so confused. I thought you couldn't enter the court unless you were properly beckoned.

Also, suppose play is at Team A's defensive end....suddenly Team A gets the ball ...THEN the coach calls to A5 to get in the game (as in situation B). Breakaway layup time..

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

FrankHtown posted

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return, and he/she sprints onto the court and catches up with play. RULING: In (a), the officials shall stop play and assess a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out. The technical foul counts toward the team-foul count. In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court. COMMENT: Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage, teams are expected to return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out. The officials should have also followed the prescribed mechanics and counted the number of players on the court, ensuring each team has the legal number of players. (10-1-9; 10-3-3)

I'm so confused. I thought you couldn't enter the court unless you were properly beckoned.

Also, suppose play is at Team A's defensive end....suddenly Team A gets the ball ...THEN the coach calls to A5 to get in the game (as in situation B). Breakaway layup time..

See situation 10.3.3 B in the case book is the exact play described above without the situations a and b above. Thus, no technical.

Situation 10.1.9 fits your criteria for situation B. Thus a technical

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Wow, #12 is awful. No T if the confusion is the result of subbing, but T if the confusion is after a time-out. I don't like that at all.

I agree this is awful, and I can't believe they'd rule this way. Just too weird. We're supposed to explain this to coach B who's standing there screaming at us? What are they thinking?!?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

FrankHtown posted

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute.

I'm so confused. I thought you couldn't enter the court unless you were properly beckoned.

A5 was already in the game. No need to be beckoned.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A5 was already in the game. No need to be beckoned.

He was also already in the game before the TO. Does he need to be beckoned then? There's no advantage if he runs onto the floor after play starts after a TO, any more than after a "lengthy substitution procedure". This interp is simply ridiculous. There's no rulebook justification for it is there? For differentiating between the two situations? I just don't git it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

He was also already in the game before the TO. Does he need to be beckoned then? There's no advantage if he runs onto the floor after play starts after a TO, any more than after a "lengthy substitution procedure". This interp is simply ridiculous. There's no rulebook justification for it is there? For differentiating between the two situations? I just don't git it.

I think you have a point, I was just saying that since A5 was not a substitute, being beckoned was not a factor for him. If he was not removed from the game what reason did he have to leave the court? What about smacking him with 9-3-3?

10-1-9 specifically calls for the technical after the time-out, but why did they muddle it together with the substitution thing in this interpretation?

[Nevadaref]

You can't apply 9-3-3 to this because that rule is ONLY for leaving during a LIVE ball. This player left while the ball was dead.

In that other thread which rainmaker rightly asked us to separate, I wrote the following about interp #12:

I agree with most of this. I agree that if all five players don't return at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission that it is a technical foul. There is a specific rule that says so.
I also agree that after a substitution process if a player remains on the bench due to confusion that play should be allowed to continue with only four players. There is no rule which says otherwise.
I DO NOT agree that the player who mistakenly remained on the bench should be allowed to return to the court during live action in all cases. This could confer an advantage and could be deceptive to the opponent. I would have to believe that an unsporting technical foul may be appropriate.

Furthermore, I have stated that with the rule change from a couple of years ago which altered the penalty for leaving the floor from a technical foul to a mere violation that there was no rule under which to penalize a player for leaving and remaining on the bench. I've disagreed with the rationale given in the ruling of Case Book play 10.3.3 Sit B (2006-07 version) for a few years now: "A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced." There was no such rule which stated that this was illegal or a T. There was nothing upon which to base this ruling.
So now the NFHS has changed this Case Book play. The 2007-08 version says, "No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court."
But the question now must be what if it does?

I would have liked to see the NFHS say that there is no penalty if the player who mistakenly went to the bench remains there until the next dead ball, but it is a T if he returns during playing action as it is classified as an unsporting foul.

[truerookie]

The 2007-08 version says, "No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court."
But the question now must be what if it does?

You would penalize with a technical see sit: 10.1.9 in casebook.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can't apply 9-3-3 to this because that rule is ONLY for leaving during a LIVE ball.

Says who?

Actually, there is no 9-3-3. I made a mistake, which is easy to believe, but you failed to catch it, which I still can't believe. The actual rule is 9-3-2: A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason.

No mention is made of live or dead ball.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've disagreed with the rationale given in the ruling of Case Book play 10.3.3 Sit B (2006-07 version) for a few years now: "A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced." There was no such rule which stated that this was illegal or a T. There was nothing upon which to base this ruling.
So now the NFHS has changed this Case Book play. The 2007-08 version says, "No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court."
But the question now must be what if it does?

There was (and is) a rule that justified the technical: 10-3-3: "A player shall not delay returning after legally being out of bounds."

The reality is that nothing in the rule has changed...only the Fed's ruling as to what to do. This year's case book play is EXACTLY the same as last year's. Only the ruling has changed.

The player who got confused during a "lengthy substitution process involving multiple subsitutions" and went to the bench is off the court for an authorized reason. When he "delays returning" he rightly was charged with a technical. The rules support is clear. Now it is clear as mud.

It is ironic how the Fed has been stressing the last few years that officials must follow the rules and apply them consistently. We are not supposed to let our personal interpretations overcome the rules. Yet what else are we to make of this change? No rule changed. No new wrinkle was added to the play. The Fed just decided it is now OK for a player who was in the game to come off the bench (as long as it is not after a time out or intermission) without penalty.

I will follow the "rule." But I don't like it either.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty.

(Emphasis mine)

Does anyone else read this as saying that we can also, at our discretion, assess a technical foul penalty?