I'm calling it.

10.1.6
 

10.1.6 Situation: With Team A leading 51 to 50, a held ball is called. A6 properly reports and enters the game. Time is then called by Team A. The clock shows two seconds remaining in the game. After play is resumed by a throw-in, the officials: (a) recognize that A has six players competing, but cannot get the clock stopped; or (b) do not notice Team A has six players on the court. Following the throw-in, time expires. Team B now reports to the officials that Team A had six players on the court.
Ruling: In (a), since one of the officials had knowledge that Team A had six players participating simultaneously and this was detected prior to time expiring, a technical foul is assessed against Team A. In (b), since it was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after time had expired, it is too late to assess any penalty.

Not at all - because the officials knew, while time was still on the clock, but there's a problem with reporting.

My situation is closer to 10.1.6(b) - if no one notices until the game is over, the game is over.

Maybe. HTBT on that one.

That said, it's not getting you two shots in addition to possession.

In your case, you <b>did</b> notice it. You were confirming what you noticed.

You're going completely against the language of 10-1-6 imo, Mark. You discovered it while being violated and the penalty should apply.

The language we should be most concerned with is "while being violated", imo.While being violated, in my mind, means that there are 6 players on the court. If one comes off, then there are 5, which is the legal case.

If the Fed wanted to include the cases where the official is positive that 6 were on the court, but didn't actually see 6 players on the court, then they have to clear up the wording.

The M-W definition of while is:My belief is that said period of time ends when all excess players have left the playing court. The excess players leaving the playing court is the occurance mark that the definition speaks of.

This is exactly why officials need to pay attention to their surroundings!

Let's assume that the game is being videotaped.

My partner(s) and I allow the inbounds pass without having counted five for each side. (Mea culpa, but not much we can do now.) I just assume that there are 5 players for A and 5 for B, and don't think to count either side.

Now, A6 steps off the floor. This is my first indication that something may be amiss. At that moment, pause the playback and count how many players A has on the court. (Hint - the answer is five.)

When there were actually six A players on the court, I had no idea that there were six out there. Unless someone shows me that the rule has changed, or shows that Team A has done something wrong by having 5 on the court, I'm not calling a T. That may be splitting hairs a bit too closely for some of you, but that's what my decision is going to be.

Hear, hear!

I couldn't agree more.

If the game is vodeotaped, then you wlll be joining Juggling Referee in doing middle school games for the rest of your careers.:D

The tape doesn't lie. A team played with 6 players. You were aware of that as soon as a player jumped off the court and you counted the remaining players on the court. If you failed to either immediately count the players left on the court <b>OR</b> you failed to call a violation on that player for leaving the court, then you have a whole bunch of 'splaining to do. Again, that's because the tape doesn't lie.

Using your rationale, you either failed to follow the language of the rule by not penalizing the team for having 6 players on the court when you discovered it, or if you say that you didn't discover it, you then failed to call an obvious violation for a player leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. Pick your poison when the tape gets reviewed.

And, as I said, I'd be willing to call the violation for leaving the floor. I feel like this topic may be reaching the "well done" stage.

Except that if it's the defense, then calling this violation is pointless and potentially harmful to the offense.

Sorry - in all the perturbations, I've been using team A and assuming that the team in violation is on offense. If the defense did this (i.e., the original situation), I'd have no whistle, obviously.

You'd watch a player step off the floor and go sit on the bench......with no whistle for anything?

As I said, good luck explaining that one from the tape.:)

Yup, well done stage.