To T or Not to T, that is the Question

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I was double-checking my count when partner went ahead and gave the "visiting" team the ball for the throw-in.

Was your hand still up in the '"stop sign" to your partner. If so, you can easily support the fact that the ball didn't properly become live, allow the player to enter, put any time back on the clock and now properly administer the throw-in.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Was your hand still up in the '"stop sign" to your partner. If so, you can easily support the fact that the ball didn't properly become live, allow the player to enter, put any time back on the clock and now properly administer the throw-in.

I'm with Bob -- do whatever it takes to prevent the T. You're counting, not sure they're all there, see the ball handed off -- then you need to tweet, and make partner take the ball back. That's still less time taken than giving, and then shooting, the T.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

"Home" team only has 4 players, and I was double-checking my count when partner went ahead and gave the "visiting" team the ball for the throw-in.

There are several issues here, all of which fall first on the officials.
if there were only four players on the floor their should have been a stop sign up for your partner because if a team has five eligable players they need to have them on the floor - so you need to stop the game until that happens and/or issue a technical because of that, or because they did not come out on the floor at the same time.

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Was my waving off the T because the timer told her to go ahead and enter the game a good move or not?

The timer does not have the authority to send a player into the game - and since the player did not arrive at the table prior to the warning horn - they can not enter the game until the next available oportunity. So a Technical for the Illegal substitution is waranted.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Whether she entered the court or not is unimportant. The mere fact that she failed to return at approximately the same time as the rest of her teammates is what warrants the T in this case.

I am going to have to disagree with you here - She doesn't get the T -if she doesn't enter the game - based on what has transpiered in the post. By their playing on they have made that point irrelevant, they should have issued the T becuase their were not five players on the floor ot it they chose to after waiting for the fifth player because they didn't come out of the huddle and onto the floor at the same time.
RUW issued the T for the Illegal substitution that occured when the player came onto the floor.

Probably just a nit picky point - but that seems to be what transpired and if questions arise that would need to be what was said.
However proper deadball managment could have avoided the situation all together.

Now the final point - there are three solid reasons a T could have been given here - you gave the T, it was deserved - you need to stick by your decision. Those affected by the T will learn from it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

.... since the player did not arrive at the table prior to the warning horn - they can not enter the game until the next available oportunity. So a Technical for the Illegal substitution is waranted.

If I understand correctly, this was not a substitution, but a failure or all players to return to the court at the same time following a time-out. Sorry if my reference to substitution was confusing.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If I understand correctly, this was not a substitution, but a failure or all players to return to the court at the same time following a time-out. Sorry if my reference to substitution was confusing.

once the ball became live - I believe the player can not enter the game without the process of a substitution.
if a team has only five players and one becomes injured and is removed from the game they must report to the table to re-enter the game they could not just come onto the floor, So they would have to wait until the next available oportunity.

So I am saying that you started with four making it okay that is where I get the T being for the illegal substitution.

If they come onto the floor at that point from the bench there is a T automatically for prior stated reasons.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Was your hand still up in the '"stop sign" to your partner. If so, you can easily support the fact that the ball didn't properly become live, allow the player to enter, put any time back on the clock and now properly administer the throw-in.

This is exactly how I handled it Saturday. Team A had 6 kids on the floor, and I had my hand up. My partner handed the girl the ball, and I whistled for him to take it back. He did, and we waited until the girls figured out who was going to leave. Took about 5 seconds altogether, and no T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is exactly how I handled it Saturday. Team A had 6 kids on the floor, and I had my hand up. My partner handed the girl the ball, and I whistled for him to take it back. He did, and we waited until the girls figured out who was going to leave. Took about 5 seconds altogether, and no T.

I did the same thing Saturday morning. First time I'd had to do it in a couple years.

[ronald]

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

[Nevadaref]

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)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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).

[Nevadaref]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Was your hand still up in the '"stop sign" to your partner. If so, you can easily support the fact that the ball didn't properly become live, allow the player to enter, put any time back on the clock and now properly administer the throw-in.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

There are several issues here, all of which fall first on the officials.
if there were only four players on the floor their should have been a stop sign up for your partner because if a team has five eligable players they need to have them on the floor - so you need to stop the game until that happens

+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.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

The timer does not have the authority to send a player into the game - and since the player did not arrive at the table prior to the warning horn - they can not enter the game until the next available oportunity. So a Technical for the Illegal substitution is waranted.

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?

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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?

Both coaches were receptive to my explanation. My explanation did include the fact the timer was the person involved, etc. The "home" coach was glad to avoid the T, while the "visiting" coach didn't care one way or the other (she was getting killed and it was during the 2nd half somewhere where it wouldn't have made a difference). This game was a very sloppy game. I think we called more violations (traveling and double dribbles) than there were points and fouls combined.

I think the coaches were just glad to get the game in, because one team had a 3-hour drive home, while the other was going to play the "neutral" school later that night, and hope they could make their 6-hour drive the next morning without hitting bad weather.