New Interps Sitch #12

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Ok, 10.1.9 does not meet the criteria. I understand that. We do still penalize though right? We just can't let player enter the court unauthorized.

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

I would suggest it in this format. When play is resumed and one team has less than five players, that team shall play with less than five players until the next dead ball situation.

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?

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by truerookie
Ok, 10.1.9 does not meet the criteria. I understand that. We do still penalize though right? We just can't let player enter the court unauthorized. I also agree with you with your suggestion to change the rule. You would suggest [B

"If play is started when one team has fewer than 5 players, that team shall play with fewer than 5 until the next opportunity to substitute."[/B]

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!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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!

Wrong!

[SmokeEater]

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Actually, you need to get up to date and use the 2007-2008 rule book (or be clear in your posts that you're not).

And, since the rule results in a violation, it must happen during a live ball. I can't think of any violations that happen during a dead ball.

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?

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

Confusion is an authorized reason?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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!

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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

No, the interp says:

Originally Posted by Interp

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.

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.

[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?

[Ref in PA]

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.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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.

[FrankHtown]

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

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Agree



1) It's "fewer," not "less." I can live with that 'FEWER"
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?

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

So do you think the interp can get in?