To T or Not to T, that is the Question

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have to go with Nevada on this one.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

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..."

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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

NV: What is your answer to the question?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NV: What is your answer to the question?

I'm not NV, but I'd answer "yes" -- it is the subs fault.

[OHBBREF]

We can argue all day long about what the T is for who it is on etc. etc.
The basic tennent here is that you shouldn't be starting the game back up with 9 or 11 players on the floor without an explaination as to why,
if you do it is your fault that it happened.

I agree with all that you do all in your power to avoid giving the technical here becuase you are just pounding on a mistake you already made,
but once you do - you are better off NOT taking it back.

Nevada I still think you are wrong - yes the player is still a player during a time out, but once (s)he stays on the bench and goes to the table and the ball is live, (s)he isn't a player anymore - they would be considered bench personel/substitue.
that is the difference between the OP and the case plays - the player in the OP went to the table to get back into the game, where as in the case plays the player came off the bench onto the floor.

That is where I draw the line, that made this player a substitue.

There is no definition as to how long the player can stay on the bench and then reenter the game as long as there is no intent to decieve? what if 20 seconds ran off the clock, 30 seconds, little Johnny needed an extra breather.

What if a fight broke out after the clock started and A5 was on the bench or was at the table and came off on to the floor? you still have A5 as a player or bench personel?

There is a whole can of worms that get opened up here, I am not disagreeing with the case play if the player came right off the bench and no advantage is gained I can see not calling the T, but you may still catch grief from the other coach about allowing that to go on.

THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS DO NOT MAKE THE BALL LIVE WITH 8 OR 9 PLAYERS ON THE FLOOR UNLESS YOU KNOW WHY AND HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm not NV, but I'd answer "yes" -- it is the subs fault.

I agree, but have some sympathy for a kid listening to a person (scorer/timer) in a position of authority. That is what a kid should do.
Thankfully, it is a moot point since as the rules are currently written following a time-out it is a technical foul prior to this and whether or not the player actually enters the court.

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

are we not just arguing semantics at this point? a completely seperate rule says that it is a T to compete with 4 players when you have players available and eligible... So.... throw out the two camps that are arguing back and forth and issue a T for this reason.

Really??? Have you got any rules support for your opinion?

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

... yes the player is still a player during a time out, but once (s)he stays on the bench and goes to the table and the ball is live, (s)he isn't a player anymore - they would be considered bench personel/substitue.

that is the difference between the OP and the case plays - the player in the OP went to the table to get back into the game, where as in the case plays the player came off the bench onto the floor.

That is where I draw the line, that made this player a substitue.

While I concur with most of the thoughts you expressed in this post, I disagree with this one because there are specific rules stating when a player becomes bench personnel. In this case, none of the required things to make a player a member of bench personnel took place. Those requirements have to be followed. You can't just make up your own and try to enforce them (such as the player went to the bench area and remained there). That is what you are doing and that is why you are reaching a mistaken conclusion.

4-34-3 "A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification."

4-34-2 "During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel."

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

There is no definition as to how long the player can stay on the bench and then reenter the game as long as there is no intent to decieve? what if 20 seconds ran off the clock, 30 seconds, little Johnny needed an extra breather.

That's why bob and I both believe that the rule should be changed. We just noted that a couple of posts ago. But until the rule is changed we have to follow it as is.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

What if a fight broke out after the clock started and A5 was on the bench or was at the table and came off on to the floor? you still have A5 as a player or bench personel?

A5 is player. Why? Because that's what the rules say. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS DO NOT MAKE THE BALL LIVE WITH 8 OR 9 PLAYERS ON THE FLOOR UNLESS YOU KNOW WHY AND HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT!

I agree.