To T or Not to T, that is the Question

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

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???

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.