To T or Not to T, that is the Question
 

Had a game this past weekend, two schools playing at a neutral site. Timeout called. Teams come back out on the floor. "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. I see the 5th player for "home" go to the table during the throw-in, and then lo and behold, she enters the game while the clock is running. I blow my whistle and give the T sign. When I went to report it, the timer, who is the AD at the "neutral" school, indicates that it was his fault because he told her to go ahead and enter. After conferring with my partner, I waved off the T, with explanation to both teams. Good handle or bad? How would you have handled it differently? I know one way I would have handled it differently would have been to hold partner up for a moment while I was double-checking the count, but he was wanting the pace of the game to go quicker because the teams were slow coming out of their timeouts.

AFTER A TIME-OUT this is a T.

See 10-1-9

Correct call is a Team Tech under 10-1-9. If this was after a lengthy substitution process, follow case play 10.3.2 B.

Was my waving off the T because the timer told her to go ahead and enter the game a good move or not? That's my biggest question.

The rule references and all I got down pat, it was just the situation was so "bizarre" I wasn't sure if I shouldn't have waved off the T.

No, it was the wrong move to take away the T.
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.

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.

A side note to this situation. This particular situation was not a substitution but the point is the same. It should be stressed over and over to coaches and players that the timer is not authorized in this capacity. I try to mention this in every pregame conference to the coaches. No sub may enter the court until beckoned by the official. No sub will be beckoned until they report to the X. The horn is a signal to get the officials attention. It is not a green light.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disagree...it does matter if they enter the court or not. The T is issued when the player returns at a different time...not for not returning when they should.

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.

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

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).

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.

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???
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.

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.

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.

Game, set and match. Camron's logic is clearly the more convincing.

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

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

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?

+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.

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?

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.

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.

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..."

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

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.

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.

NV: What is your answer to the question?

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

One can argue that it is the coach's fault for not teaching the sub the rule, but, no matter about that, it is the sub who must ultimately pay the penalty.

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.

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!

Penalty ???
 

Citation for the penalty please.

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.

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

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."

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.

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

I agree. :)

Ref Ump Welsch:

You do not say if your crew was a two- or three-person crew, but I am getting the impression that it was a two-person crew. In any case, let us look how this situation should be handled and go from there.

1) PRE-GAME!! PRE-GAME!! PRE-GAME!! PRE-GAME!! PRE-GAME!!

2) Crew communication!! Crew communication!! Crew communication!!

3) When your partner gave the ball to V1 for the throw-in before you were done with your player count, put great quanities of air into your whistle for as long as it takes to get your partner's attention while moving toward him while showing the Stop Sign. Your whistle will kill everything.

4) There are ways to get teams out of the huddle and in this situation your partner's action was not the way to do it.

5) When you get into the dressing room for half-time (if this situation took place in the first half) or after the game (if this situation took place in the second half) I would be having a very serious chat with my partner about eye contact and partner communication.

In the final analysis, you should have taken control of the situation: Get together with your partner in private and make the decision that there is not going to be a TF because, as an officiating crew, you screwed up by not communicating. Get the player into the game. And move on.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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~

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