I believe Nevada's citation indicates that the T was for not returning at approximately the same time as the others. Although it was not recognized until later, the ruling states it was for not coming back on time not because they ran onto the court.

The stitch just happens to have a player running onto the court. You could have 4 players come onto the court after a timeout, have a throw-in and then realize this. What are you going to do when you recognize (live ball) and only four players on the court for team A. Correct me if I am wrong: you are going to give the Team with four a T (assume they have 5 available players).

Ron

Yes, Ron, that's correct.

Your play is the reason that what Camron wrote is doesn't work.

I even posted the official NFHS case play. This is a TEAM technical foul. It does not get charged to any individual or the coach.

Everything that OHBBREF has written is merely his opinion. Unfortunately, he is incorrect about the rules. If he would simply read the case play that I posted, he would be better off. He advocates giving a technical foul to a substitute, but this team member is a player. This player never left the game. He was never replaced during the time-out and therefore, continues to be a player. He is simply confused and failed to come out with everyone else. How can one insist that a player must check in at the table and adhere to the substitution rules when he is already legally in the game? That's not right. Remember that players remain players during time-outs!

This play was much discussed a couple of years ago and the NFHS issued a formal interp. That interp has since become two separate case plays. I've already posted one of them, and Indianaref cited the other. Reading the original NFHS interp and the reasoning behind it will convince you that what others have posted in this thread does not properly follow NFHS direction.

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

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involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute.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)

This case only supports a T after a timeout when "he/she sprints onto the court".

When A5 doesn't return, this case doesn't address a penalty. The team plays with 4 until the next whistle (perhaps a timeout by team A).

The T for not returning at the same time is ONLY for when a player returns...after the ball becomes live...i.e., not at the same time. If they don't enter the court....they haven't returned at all. That is not the same as not returning at the same time (read different time).

No, Camron, failing to return at all definitely constitutes not returning at approximately the same time as the rest of the teammates. That is the reason for the T. It says so right there in black and white.

If returning to the court at a later time were the reason for the technical foul, then the substitution situation would also be a T since the player clearly runs onto the court during play.

You may now go forward believing whatever you wish. I'm not going to get into a prolonged discussion about this. The NFHS has clearly stated the reason for the technical foul in this case, and I've posted that ruling, written by the NFHS, not you or me, so that any new or inexperienced officials will not be misinformed by your remarks.

What it says, in black and white, is that the 5th player returned to the floor at a time later than the others....not that they didn't return.

How can two things happen at different times if one of them doesn't happen at all???
The reason that is not true is that the rule says they can't return at a different time after a time out. Your point about the substitution situation is irrelevant.

The case you cited CLEARLY states that the 5th player returned to the floor during a live ball...at a time after the other players. What the NFHS has so CLEARLY stated was that the T was for RETURNING to the floor at a time different than the rest of the team after a timeout. It does not address a player who doesn't return.

Yes, it does. It says "all."
"...a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out."

Not four, not some, not half, not those who wish to continue participating. ALL players are required to return following a time-out. If one doesn't an infraction has occurred. Nothing further is necessary.

But...it implies they return at DIFFERENT times....as the case it is commenting on explicity spells out. If they meant for it to apply to a player who remains on the sideline and doesn't return, the case wouldn't have specified that the player ran on to the court late. Such a point would have been irrelevant.

If all players who return actually return at the same time, the rule doesn't apply.

Game, set and match. Camron's logic is clearly the more convincing.

Perhaps to a female. :p
No, seriously, he makes a decent argument except for one small fact--he's wrong. :D

It only says that because that is when the officials notice the problem. Obviously had they noticed it before, they wouldn't have put the ball into play with one team only having four players out there!

Returning to the court late USED TO be illegal per a case play that the NFHS changed last year, and it was a PLAYER technical foul, not a TEAM T. The NFHS has dropped that ruling.

From 2006-07:
10.3.3 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, believing he/she has been replaced. 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 A5 sprints directly onto the court without reporting or without being beckoned. RULING: A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced.

Now it is not illegal to run onto the court late.
From the current 2008-09 Case Book:
10.3.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple

It is simply illegal to not come out with the rest of your teammates following a time-out. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the way that it has been for a long time. Look at the remark included in this past case play:

DELAYING RETURN FOLLOWING TIME-OUT
10.1.9 SITUATION: Following a charged time-out 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 three-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 immediately charged to Team B for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. While it is true the entire team may be off the court while the procedure is being used, once a team responds, all players must enter the court at approximately the same time. COMMENT: The resumption-of-play procedure is in effect to start the second half unless either team is not on the court. In that case regular delay provisions are in force.

Notice that it doesn't say, "all players who return" as you advocate.

That's just not true. You have put an additional qualifier in there. The actual rule just says ALL PLAYERS. Therefore, it means each and every one of the team members who is a player at that time. Again, not some, ALL.

You're comparing an apple with an orange a little bit. The above mentioned play which has been altered from T to no T is following a "lengthy substitution," not a timeout, which is what y'all are fighting about now, is it not?

3.1.1 tells us that a team must have 5 players participating as long as it has that number available, but lists no penalty if the team fails to do so. If the coach had only 5 eligible players, and pulled one from the game during a timeout for disciplinary reasons or whatever, and had no intention of sending this player back onto the court if not instructed to do so, I think it would be difficult to call a T in this situation.

A player entering the court late is not specified in the rule. It is a part of the case play. How can be certain with the given information exactly what the intentions of the committee were?

+1.

I'm doing absolutely whatever I can do to prevent this T. Even as the administering official, I do a quick head count. 5 + 5, not 10.

The girl accepted a statement from a person who is seemingly in an authoratative position when the scorekeeper, a member of the officiating staff, said, "...go ahead and go in..."

The word beckon (language used in the rulebook) seems to demand a signal, and it could be argued that verbal instruction is different that a hand signal. However, sometimes table crew are dressed in stripes, giving the impression that the table crew are at an authority level higher than expected, if not on-court.

Is it the substitutes' fault that (s)he doesn't know to wait for an signal (a beckoning) from an on-court official?

There was no intent to deceive here. Do what you can to avoid calling the T. Nevada's 10.1.9 situation is post #3 clearly has a deception act to it. There is no such deceptive element in the OP.

Furthermore, the OP says that the girl came to the table while the throw-in was not yet complete. And came in after the clock started. How much time elapsed between these two events? Maybe the girl thought she was told by her coach that she was taken out, and then found out she wasn't. Do we really want to penalize such events with a technical foul?

I am heavily going to interpret "approximately the same time" to be liberal in this case.

Sounds like an OOO to me, to stick with a T.

If the player was originally on the court they s/he is not a substitute, so then it goes back to my original point of an OOO. I know it happens all the time that one player is later than others. Tell me, how many of us have issued this technical foul?

In the end, I think issuing the T is a bad call.

Ref Ump Welsch, I think you did the right thing.

How did the coaches handle your explanation? Did you include the fact that the scorekeeper, a neutral party and part of the officiating staff, went outside their authority, and then even gave faulty information?

Point 1: This is not correct, and I have to go with Nevada on this one. The rule states that the T is for players not all returning at the same time. That leaves open whether one or more players returns at a later time or fails to return. The implication you assert is not there.

Point 2: The case is an example of not returning with the others. A different example would be a player who did not return at all. They are both ways of failing to return at the same time, which is the grounds of the T.

The rule clearly states that the T is for failing to return at the same time, not for returning at a different time.

I agree. I think the rule *should be* (at least similar to) what Camron says, but I think the FED has written it as Nevada says.

What I'd like to see: If a team is dumb enough to start play with 4, then they live with that disadvantage until there's an opportunity to substitute. If a team is dumb enough to start play with 6, then it's a T for gaining an advantage not intended by rules.

Not true. The NFHS does not care about deception in this case. It is not the basis for the ruling. That's a concern in a situation involving a possible player technical foul. In this case the NFHS actually issued an interp which came out during the previous year and eventually became the new case play. The NFHS is definitely aware that the situation is due to confusion and that no advantage is gained, yet wants a T called here anyway. See my earlier post containing this NFHS Interpretation. (Post #21)
"Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage..."

That is very elegantly stated. You have to be a professional writer of some kind. Nice job. :)

Bob, I've already gone on record on this forum stating that I agree with what you've written above in previous threads on this. That is what the rule SHOULD be, but isn't. That would be a better rule in my opinion.