Last Second Bench T

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 12: Team B has just scored to go up by three points with time running out in the fourth quarter. Player A1 inbounds the ball to A2 close to the sideline of Team B's bench. A2 releases a three-point try just prior to the horn sounding. Substitute B7 leaves the bench area, enters the court and blocks the shot. RULING: B7 shall be charged with two technical fouls and ejected. One technical foul is assessed for entering the court without permission and one for unsporting conduct. Any member of Team A may shoot the four free throws for the technical fouls. The results of these free throws will determine if the game is over or going into overtime. COMMENT: Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act. (10-4-1; 10-4-2)

Great citation. I'm curious. Why wouldn't there be a third technical foul charged to Team B for having more than five team members participating simultaneously? I'm sure that the head coach of Team A could argue that his, or her, team should get six foul shots, not only four, thus giving his, or her, team a better chance to win the game, or send it into overtime.

Nevadaref: This interpretation is three years old. How do you keep coming up with these? I'm lucky if I remembered what I had for dinner last night. Now that Jurassic Referee, and ChuckElias, have "left the building", I hope that you decide to stick around a while.

Also. We can't ignore "everything" that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. posts. After all, he is the one who suggested to Dr. Naismith that he use a peach basket instead of the good Doctor's original idea of using an Easter basket. I understand that Dr. Naismith loved those pink, marshmallow, Peeps chicks.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great citation. I'm curious. Why wouldn't there be a third technical foul charged to Team B for having more than five team members participating simultaneously?

I realize this would be piling on, but - could the B Head Coach get an indirect T as the player's T's pertain to Bench Personnel?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by grunewar

I realize this would be piling on, but - could the B Head Coach get an indirect T as the player's T's pertain to Bench Personnel?

That player is bench personnel, so the T's would also be indirects. But, of course, there are no shots for those.

[Adam]

I've got a player entering without beckoning; not an indirect.
I've got 6 players playing; not an indirect.

The interp has one for entering without permission, same as my first. Not an indirect.
They have the 2nd as unsportsmanlike conduct. This would be an indirect if you still consider this player to be "bench" personnel.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've got a player entering without beckoning; not an indirect. I've got 6 players playing; not an indirect. The interp has one for entering without permission, same as my first. Not an indirect. They have the 2nd as unsportsmanlike conduct. This would be an indirect if you still consider this player to be "bench" personnel.

Can we say "team members participating" instead of "players playing"? I think that it describes a more accurate situation, especially when it comes to penalties. How about my original question: Why wouldn't there be a third technical foul charged to Team B for having more than five team members participating simultaneously? Is this microphone working?

[Back In The Saddle]

Perhaps the rules committee wanted to keep some semblance of balance? The infraction took away a chance at three points to win the game. The prescribed penalty provides the opportunity to score four. It's about a wash.

Just my $0.02

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nevadaref: This interpretation is three years old. How do you keep coming up with these? I'm lucky if I remembered what I had for dinner last night. Now that Jurassic Referee, and ChuckElias, have "left the building", I hope that you decide to stick around a while.

I can't speak for Nevada, but this interp (at least the general outline of it) was relatively easy for me to remember -- we had discussed this play several times over the years with no easy answer. We all wanted "more than one T" but couldn't really find rules support for it. So wehn the FED issued the interp, it was good to see and made an impression.

It's one of the examples used to hint that someone at the FED (or someone who has the ear of the FED) reads this forum.