New Interps Sitch #12
 

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involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute.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

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?!?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
You can't apply 9-3-3 to this because that rule is ONLY for leaving during a LIVE ball.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Said the NFHS when they put that rule change in. It was in the comments section.

And yes, it has been moved to 9-3-3 in the new 2007-08 book. An old throw-in provision in the new 9-3-2.