|
|||
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involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute.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.. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
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.
__________________
truerookie |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
[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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |