4 players

[just another ref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Not always the case.

Really? In what cases should 10-1-9 not be enforced?

Please enlighten us.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Not always the case.

He didn't say it was always the case. He said "This situation warrants...."

[zm1283]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps they were used to working 5th grade games and not properly applying all of the rules.

So you would call this in the 5th grade game, right after you T'd the kid with the illegal jersey 'cause he left his real jersey at grandma's house.

Very impressive rules knowledge.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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

[mick]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Really? In what cases should 10-1-9 not be enforced?

Please enlighten us.

The "approximately" part makes it subjective.

[wizard]

What about case book 10.3.2 (Sit. B)? Sounds like the situation that was here...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by wizard

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

[wizard]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by wizard

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".

The play last night was definitely not deceitful, and definitely did not give any advantage to anyone.

The example in 10.1.9 has B5 entering the court to catch a long pass, apparently gaining an advantage, but the last line says "once a team responds, all players must enter the court at approximately the same time."

As mick pointed out, the word approximately does make it subjective, but for my take, once the ball is in play for several seconds, the window is closed.

[Yanaqa]

What started out as just a local phenomenon at a highschool in Brandon,Florida is about to stretch it's boundries to the whole nation

Edit :
Shut em down ?
I agree.
mick

[Adam]

Is it some sort of A-5 offensive formation?