To T or Not to T, that is the Question

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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


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

substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains
there, mistakenly 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 he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches
up with the play. RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5’s return to
the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage
on the court.

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?