New Interps Sitch #12

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 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.

You've brought this up several times, and 10.1.9 has NOTHING TO DO with 10.3.3. The T in 10.1.9 is for "not all returning at the same time" -- and the rule (10-1-9) specifically limits this to "following a TO or intermission."

There was no TO or intermission involved in 10.3.3B, so rule 10-1-9 does not apply.

The rule would be easier to administer, understand and apply, and would place the blame where it belongs if both rules were changed to '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."

Hmmm -- maybe I'll propose that for next year.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You've brought this up several times, and 10.1.9 has NOTHING TO DO with 10.3.3. The T in 10.1.9 is for "not all returning at the same time" -- and the rule (10-1-9) specifically limits this to "following a TO or intermission."

There was no TO or intermission involved in 10.3.3B, so rule 10-1-9 does not apply.

The rule would be easier to administer, understand and apply, and would place the blame where it belongs if both rules were changed to '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."

Hmmm -- maybe I'll propose that for next year.

Hey, stop thinking like me. See my last sentence in post #7.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]You've brought this up several times, and 10.1.9 has NOTHING TO DO with 10.3.3. The T in 10.1.9 is for "not all returning at the same time" -- and the rule (10-1-9) specifically limits this to "following a TO or intermission."

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 '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."

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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

Originally Posted by truerookie

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

That's not necessarily what the NFHS is saying in that case book play. Notice that in 10.1.9 the action is taking place following a time-out, not following a lengthy substitution process. That makes a big difference because there is a clear rule which says that a T shall be charged in this case (10-1-9), while there is no such corresponding rule for the substitution situation. Therefore, it is unclear whether the criterion being used for the T in 10.1.9 is that an unfair advantage was gained by the player or that the action took place after a time-out or intermission and thus met the letter of the rule. It seems more likely that the standard is simply what the action follows. That is black and white and easy to teach, while deciding what is an advantage and what is not for a returning player is a gray area.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It seems more likely that the standard is simply what the action follows.

In fact, after reading Situation 12 again, I'm sure that that is the standard which is being applied in 10.1.9 because that is exactly what the new interp is saying. If the very same action occurs following a time-out or intermission it is a T, but if it takes place after a substitution then it isn't. So we now know for sure what is the criterion.

I will have to join the others in stating that this is ridiculous. The NFHS is picking a poor criterion. Either the player should be allowed to return during playing action or he shouldn't, but whether or not he can't shouldn't depend upon what happened before he came back.

Why not say that he can return in the first half without penalty, but not in the second half? The rationale would be that his team's goal is at the opposite end of the court, so he would be returning on the defensive end in the first half, but on the offensive end in the second half.

Sometimes the NFHS engages in silliness.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.