To T or Not to T, that is the Question

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

How do you know that?

Let's just say that the coach sent 4 players to the table to sub during the timeout...and those 4 were on the floor with all five of the players that were previously playing sitting on the bench. That leaves ONE of the other five that should be a player...but which one? Hmmm. The coach then sends one of them to the table to check in. You're assuming that is the one that that wasn't supposed to come out. Perhaps, the coach is sending a different one back in thinking he's just making yet another substitution. Sure, by your ruling, it doesn't really matter...but it has ramifications on other possible situations (leaving the bench during a fight, earning a T, etc.).

Let's say that a team is down to 5 players when one of them becomes injured. By your rulings, that person remains a player even though they are on the bench since no sub entered in their place (and they weren't DQ'd). Hmmm. As such, that person can come back onto the floor and rejoin play when they're ready since they're still a player and have left for an authorized reason. Is that really what you're proposing.

Further, if they became injured during the timeout, your ruling suggest that the team has earned a T if that player doesn't return simply because they're a player and must return (there is no exception if your interpretation is correct). Hmmm.

Also the rule about failure to return applies not only to timeouts but to intermissions. But, as you've so clearly pointed out above, there are no players during intermission. Hmmm....one rule says there are no players during intermission while another says the players must return after intermission. How can something that doesn't exist return??

You're reading way to much into the rule. I'd go so far as to say that the intent is that all team members are to be bench personnel even during a timeout. A person becomes bench personnel not only through being replaced or DQ'd but by simply being on the bench. Its not spelled out in the rules because it is just basic common sense. If they're on the bench, they're bench personnel.

I'll say it again, the rule about players returning but not returning at the same time.

What if we combine the two situations in your cited case....a timeout with lots of subs....the argument given by the NFHS holds. A player that thought they were subbed out shouldn't be penalized for returning.

EVERY SINGLE CASE/SITUATION you've cited that results in a T has the player returning to the floor during a live ball after the timeout...everyone. The explanations even imply that they're returning deceitfully or in a way that gives the team an advantage. The cases that don't end in a T (after subbing) comment about deceit and advantage....implying that it would be a T in the event the official deems it deceitful or advantageous.

By the letter of the rule, you can certainly read it the way you are...but that doesn't make it right.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Not sure why you have to ask a question so antagonistically, but I will respond.

When I posted yesterday I did not have a book with me and I specifically remember a sitch in a JUCO game last year where the coach said he was only going to play with 4 even though he had plenty of suited and eligible players. NCAA states in 3-2 that the team must play with 5 if they have them. There is no case play or penalty reference that I can find but the obvious is if the coach does not put in a player it is a T on the coach. NFHS is a bit more vague upon further (cursory) review.

So maybe the two issues are apples and oranges and don't apply after looking at it further... but I threw it out there as I was thinking on the fly as it "might" merit further discussion.

But I certainly do appreciate your "I am God's gift to rules knowledge and interpretation" demeanor. It is refreshing [sarcasm]

~sigh~

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

But I certainly do appreciate your "I am God's gift to rules knowledge and interpretation" demeanor. It is refreshing [sarcasm]

~sigh~

It's nothing personal. Just ignore it like you would a coach making a sarcastic comment under his breath.