The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 02:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Went to watch girls state semi-final games tonight. Start of 2nd quarter, white team, which had been playing straight man to man, (and getting shredded) wisely switched to a zone. Blue had the throw-in to start the quarter. But something looked funny about the zone defense. It had a big hole in it. After 5-10 seconds, coaches finally noticed and spoke to #13 on the bench. She stood up, hesitated briefly, then took her position on the court. Official turned to watch as she entered............and made no call.
Perhaps they were used to working 5th grade games and not properly applying all of the rules.

The situation clearly warrants a Team Tech for failing to have all five players return at the same time following a time-out or intermission. 10-1-9
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 03:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wasilla Ak
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Perhaps they were used to working 5th grade games and not properly applying all of the rules.

The situation clearly warrants a Team Tech for failing to have all five players return at the same time following a time-out or intermission. 10-1-9
Not always the case.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 04:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKOFL View Post
Not always the case.
Really? In what cases should 10-1-9 not be enforced?

Please enlighten us.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 09:39am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Really? In what cases should 10-1-9 not be enforced?

Please enlighten us.
The "approximately" part makes it subjective.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 10:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 216
What about case book 10.3.2 (Sit. B)? Sounds like the situation that was here...
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 11:16am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
What about case book 10.3.2 (Sit. B)? Sounds like the situation that was here...
This case deals with a lengthy substitution process, as opposed to a timeout.


Wouldn't the principle be the same? It would seem so, but it is addressed differently in two different rules. 10-1-9 & 10-3-2
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 11:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
This case deals with a lengthy substitution process, as opposed to a timeout.


Wouldn't the principle be the same? It would seem so, but it is addressed differently in two different rules. 10-1-9 & 10-3-2
Thanks. I see the difference. By the casebook's ruling was: "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."

Whether its dead ball mass substitution or during a timeout, both seem to me to "not be deceitful".
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 08:22pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,406
After a lengthy substitution process ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
What about case book 10.3.2 (Sit. B)? Sounds like the situation that was here.
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 01:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wasilla Ak
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Really? In what cases should 10-1-9 not be enforced?

Please enlighten us.
10.3.2 sit B was my thought. Advanage gained appears to be the difference in the enforcement of theses two sits. That's just my thought. It's similar to the returning frow the throw-in. If they try to gain an advantage by thoes few steps out of bounds (use a screen) before returning, it's a T. If you have a kid do the same thing with out the screen I've got nothing. Does that make any sense?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 07:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKOFL View Post
10.3.2 sit B was my thought. Advanage gained appears to be the difference in the enforcement of theses two sits. That's just my thought. It's similar to the returning frow the throw-in. If they try to gain an advantage by thoes few steps out of bounds (use a screen) before returning, it's a T. If you have a kid do the same thing with out the screen I've got nothing. Does that make any sense?
Unfortunately, you are using a different criterion than the one the NFHS put forth. Gaining an advantage is not a consideration when the situation takes place FOLLOWING A TIME-OUT OR INTERMISSION. The NFHS has made it clear that under those circumstances a technical foul shall be assessed.

I do not like it that the ruling is different following a substitution process. I'll mention it to my committee member and see if we can get the rulings to match.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post

I do not like it that the ruling is different following a substitution process. I'll mention it to my committee member and see if we can get the rulings to match.
I agree. Both are very similar by nature. I've seen both, and both were not deceitful, but honest mistakes.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 04, 2009, 08:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wasilla Ak
Posts: 500
both of these are listed under delays that get a T, but 10.3.2 sit b is no T. So you can only make a mistake after lengthy substitutions. What about subs durring a timeout? Any thoughts nevada
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 07:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKOFL View Post
Not always the case.
He didn't say it was always the case. He said "This situation warrants...."
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 09:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,280
What is the difference between what NevadaRef cited (Failing to have all five players return at the same time), and the rule about entering the court without being beckoned? Does the player have to be at the table to be penalized for entering without being beckoned? I remember we had a lengthy thread about this a while back.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 03, 2009, 09:33am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by zm1283 View Post
What is the difference between what NevadaRef cited (Failing to have all five players return at the same time), and the rule about entering the court without being beckoned? Does the player have to be at the table to be penalized for entering without being beckoned? I remember we had a lengthy thread about this a while back.
A substitute must be beckoned. 10-2-2 This was not a substitute, but a player who was supposed to be in the game, and therefore was supposed to return at the same time as the other players. 10-1-9
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only 8 players - FED blueump Baseball 3 Wed Apr 21, 2004 08:49am
4 players Buckley11 Basketball 5 Tue Feb 10, 2004 06:32am
5 to 4 to 5 Players SteveF Basketball 22 Wed Jan 28, 2004 04:50pm
4 players Troward Basketball 28 Thu Dec 19, 2002 03:35pm
Too few players MOFFICIAL Basketball 20 Tue Dec 11, 2001 12:24am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1