Apparently, we can. There's no rule against it (unless it's a sub, or during a fight, ...).

1) It's "fewer," not "less."

2) So the player could enter after a made basket and before the team that didn't score has the ball for the throw in?

I don't agree to penalize in this case. It is a combination of confusion and failure to follow proper mechanics of counting players on the floor prior to putting the ball in play. So its as much the officials fault as it is the player and perhaps more the coaches fault all together!;)

Whats wrong with this statement if you read the interp it says as much.

My bad. Picked up the wrong book the second time. I knew this was a stretch, but was just looking for SOMETHING. What if, before the ball becomes live on a throw-in, players are jockeying for position, and A1 excessively swings his elbows?

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.

Confusion is an authorized reason?

If we don't penalize, then how would you fix it? (I *could see* something like -- the ball becomes dead allow the sub to reenter the next time team A gets control of the ball).

No, the interp says:This statement does not imply fault onthe part of the officials. If the officials bore any actual blame, it would be stupid to assess the technical foul.

Providing a means that we should follow to avoid these problems is not the same thing as assigning blame.

(Emphasis mine)

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

This could be just me, but I don't think I would have the presense of mind to know if A5 was the correct player that should be in the game, especially after a lengthy, confusing substitution. A3 might have also come off the floor. So the coach can essentially send back on the floor any one of the players that came off. I am not even sure I would notice if A8 came off the bench rather than A5 - especially if A8 had played earlier in the game (which should be a T for not reporting). Basically, this interpretation is giving a pass to team A because the refs did not follow correct procedure for not counting prior to administering the inbounds play.

Ok I agree with your rational, I also know that following the prescribed mechanic may avoid the need for any penalty. I am as "guilty" as the next for having this situation happen. It has simply been resuming play too quick before I am sure that my partner is ready or all players are accounted for.

Agreed. It's something we should prevent, because we have an easy tool to do it with ("with which to do it" for you grammar nerds).

I just don't like the implication that it's the refs' fault. It gives the coach an excuse where none is deserved.

Maybe in the next few years we'll see "changing on the fly" like in hockey.

Ok, as long as the opposing team is in possession of the ball it is ok to re-enter without being penalized :cool:

So do you think the interp can get in?