The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 05:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
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involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute.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..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
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involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute.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
__________________
truerookie

Last edited by truerookie; Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 06:40pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 06:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Wow, #12 is awful. No T if the confusion is the result of subbing, but T if the confusion is after a time-out. I don't like that at all.
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?!?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 11:28pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
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.

I'm so confused. I thought you couldn't enter the court unless you were properly beckoned.
A5 was already in the game. No need to be beckoned.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 12:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 02:03am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 06:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 07:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
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.
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 07:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 07:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 07:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 08:14am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 09:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
[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.
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 09, 2007, 09:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New interps Sitch # 10 rainmaker Basketball 82 Thu Oct 11, 2007 08:03am
NCAA-W Interps bob jenkins Basketball 30 Fri Jan 16, 2004 08:42am
NCAA Interps bob jenkins Basketball 5 Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:18pm
I made the interps! Nevadaref Basketball 5 Thu Oct 30, 2003 09:05am
Where do all those interps come from? Carl Childress Baseball 30 Sat Mar 03, 2001 11:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1