New Interps Sitch #12

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).