Lead Administers FT while Trail is substituting

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think this was an NCAA interp issued in a mid-season bulletin a couple years ago. The ruling (I think) was that the ball never became live because the substitution process hadn't been completed. But at the HS level, I don't think we have such a ruling.

sigh... I was really hoping to see this thread take off... and then you had to jump in with an approved ruling instead of wild speculation and personal opinion...

btw... I would do it the same under nfhs.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

sigh... I was really hoping to see this thread take off... and then you had to jump in with an approved ruling instead of wild speculation and personal opinion...

Where's OS/JMO when you need him/her?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Where's OS/JMO when you need him/her?

Posting under the Nom de Net of Dan_ref.....

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

sigh... I was really hoping to see this thread take off... and then you had to jump in with an approved ruling instead of wild speculation and personal opinion...

I don't actually HAVE the approved ruling. I merely SEEM to remember it. Speculate away.

[ronny mulkey]

We had our share of this very play a few years back. Now, we pre-game this scenario so hard in our association that some of my partners jokingly go into the lane and take the ball away from the adminstering official. Regardless, it does make the point that one of us is over at the table tring to get a sub in.

When I'm with partners that are more serious, I make sure they know that it is 5 AND I never turn my back on them.

But, if you do put the ball in play then you have to live with the consequencies - play on.

[satellite_6]

I don't know how I happened upon this old thread, but it raised a question in my mind. Rule 3.1 says that you cannot play with only 4 players when a substitute is available for a DQ'd player. Once that official notified the coach that his player was DQ'd, he became bench personnel. While this is not a correctable error, haven't we unnecessarily put Team B at a disadvantage by not allowing them their additional rebounder? If I'm team B, I'd rather give team A another opportunity to make their first free throw than give them the ball back for an opportunity of a 2 or 3 point play.

I also find it difficult to take away points if team A made the first free throw, as the sub would have had no impact on that shot.

Before reading this thread, I might have left a free throw on the board for a made situation... but performed a 'do over' for a miss. Is it really the 'official' interpretation that we are to 'play on' in federation rules?



"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation"

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by satellite_6

I don't know how I happened upon this old thread, but it raised a question in my mind. Rule 3.1 says that you cannot play with only 4 players when a substitute is available for a DQ'd player. Once that official notified the coach that his player was DQ'd, he became bench personnel. While this is not a correctable error, haven't we unnecessarily put Team B at a disadvantage by not allowing them their additional rebounder? If I'm team B, I'd rather give team A another opportunity to make their first free throw than give them the ball back for an opportunity of a 2 or 3 point play.

I also find it difficult to take away points if team A made the first free throw, as the sub would have had no impact on that shot.

Before reading this thread, I might have left a free throw on the board for a made situation... but performed a 'do over' for a miss. Is it really the 'official' interpretation that we are to 'play on' in federation rules?



"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation"

It is appropriate to play on, and hopefully the official waiting on the sub is going to blow the play dead prior to a rebound.

There is no rules support for awarding a "do over" for a miss.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

It is appropriate to play on, and hopefully the official waiting on the sub is going to blow the play dead prior to a rebound.

There is no rules support for awarding a "do over" for a miss.

I agree that the FED doesn't have a provision that would allow us to do this play over. The ball was live once it was @ the disposal of thrower. No way to take the point off. If the whistle is blown while the ball is in flight, and the shot misses then you would have to go AP since the ball wouldn't be dead until the try was succesful/unsuccesful. AP might actually be the fairest way out of this mess. However if the shot is made then fix the sub problem and shoot the second.

BTW...Never seen or heard of a approved NCAA ruling that said the ball is dead until the substitution is complete. You know where it is @?

2008 NCAA RULE 6-5 Dead Ball

Art. 1. The ball shall become dead or remain dead when:
a. Any goal is made.
b. It is apparent that the free throw will not be successful on a free throw for
a technical foul or a false double foul or a free throw that is to be followed
by another free throw.
c. A held ball occurs or the ball lodges between the backboard and the ring or
comes to rest on the flange.
RULE 6 / LIVE BALL AND DEAD BALL 111
d. An official blows the whistle.
e. Time expires for a half or extra period.
f. A foul is called.
g. Any floor violation (Rules 9-3 through 9-14) occurs, there is basket
interference or goaltending (Rule 9-16) or there is a free-throw violation
by the free-thrower’s team (Rule 9-1).

[satellite_6]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

It is appropriate to play on, and hopefully the official waiting on the sub is going to blow the play dead prior to a rebound.

There is no rules support for awarding a "do over" for a miss.

One more quick question. Where is the rules support for playing on?

We as officials have just allowed a play that put team B at a tremendous disadvantage. In my mind, a play that never happened since team B is required to have 5 players on the court in order to continue. This is our mistake, not team B's.

Without documented support for either action, I'd refer back to the intent of the rules which is to ensure that a player or team is not permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule.

If it is documented somewhere, I'd be happy and fine knowing that I am supported in playing on. I just haven't found that yet.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by satellite_6

This is our mistake, not team B's.

You're right, this is an officials' mistake. Unfortunately (or fortunately, from a different point of view), officials' mistakes are not correctable. Therefore, this activity happened and the results have to be accepted.

The "rules support" for playing on is that there is no rules support for correcting or "re-doing" this play. If you can find somewhere in the rules that would allow for canceling a merited free throw when there is no violation, I'd be happy to then agree with you.

Short of that, there's nothing you can do but apologize to the coach you screwed and keep on keepin' on.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by satellite_6

One more quick question. Where is the rules support for playing on?

We as officials have just allowed a play that put team B at a tremendous disadvantage. In my mind, a play that never happened since team B is required to have 5 players on the court in order to continue. This is our mistake, not team B's.

Without documented support for either action, I'd refer back to the intent of the rules which is to ensure that a player or team is not permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule.

If it is documented somewhere, I'd be happy and fine knowing that I am supported in playing on. I just haven't found that yet.

Here's a couple of case book examples in reference to having only 4 players on the court...

10.1.9 Following a charged T/O Team B is still with their coach on the sideline when the official sounds the whistle to indicate play will resume. Four players of B return to the court just in time to play defense as A1 attempts an unsuccessful 3-pointer. B1 rebounds and throws a long pass to B5 who enters the court just in time to catch the pass. Ruling A technical foul is charged to the B team for failing to have all players return to the court at approx. the same time.

So we can play with only 4 players when 5 are available. In this case resumption of play was used and penalty given for not coming to the floor or for coming to the floor in a advantageous position.

If for some reason we inbound the ball with 4 on one side without knowing the 5th can come on without penalty as long as they don't enter the court in a advantageous position or in a deceitful manner.

Case Book 10.3.3...A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only 4 players on the court......A5...sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play. Ruling: No technical.....A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair POSITIONING advantage on the court.

Neither instance require a "DO OVER." We are looking for either a delay which would require the resumption of play or if the team was being deceitful. If they were then there's a penalty. If their not and they don't gain an advantage then they can just run onto the floor.

These case plays help substantiate the earlier posts that stated you can't wipe basket and do a do over with out it being a correctable error. The case book is clear that when a official errors it isn't correctable.