Technical Administered or Not ??

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

He probably meant B1 for throw in.

Probably did, especially since the OP said the 4 teammates were playing defense. But I just wanted to make sure.

So, what do you think - if A5 stayed at the table, would you still call the T per 10.1.9?

[Peach State Ref]

Sorry - The original question was given to me the way that I first posted it, but it should have read ... hands the ball to B1 for throw-in to begin.......

[Rufus]

Wouldn't the time to enforce 10.1.9 be before the ball is handed to B1 for the throw in? Since play was allowed to continue with only 4 players on the court A5 then became a substitute waiting to be beckoned onto the court.

For this reason when A5 stepped onto the court without being beckoned I would think 10.2.2 would apply instead wouldn't it?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Wouldn't the time to enforce 10.1.9 be before the ball is handed to B1 for the throw in? Since play was allowed to continue with only 4 players on the court A5 then became a substitute waiting to be beckoned onto the court.

For this reason when A5 stepped onto the court without being beckoned I would think 10.2.2 would apply instead wouldn't it?

The problem with this is A5 was one of the 5 players before intermission, and should've been one of the 5 after. So she is not a substitute, because she is not replacing one of the 5 players on the floor. I think that is why they added 10.1.9, to take care of that "loophole" of player vs. substitute.

I also agree with Camron, in that the case play does mention the T is issued after the player comes back on the floor to accept the pass, not at the time the ball was put in play. So it appears the committee is saying it's ok to play with less than 5, but as soon as the player tries to come on the court during a live ball, a T is issued. Not because of an illegal susbstitute, but because of all 5 players not coming back unto the court at approximately the same time.

[Rufus]

M&M
I see your point, but expand the thought a little. What if, for whatever reason, the coach decides he only wants 4 players on the court even though he has eligible players on the bench available (for some reason a picture of Gene Hackman flashed into my head - don't know why). After a couple of plays/minutes/whatever he finally decides to send a 5th player to check in. Are they a substitute or not? I would think they were considered a substitute in that situation wouldn't they?

I guess the point I'm trying to get to is we as officials can't read minds and understand why there are only 4 players on the court. We can determine that we have a live ball with fewer than 5 players. Once that happens any players looking to come into the game become substitutes don't they?

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Rufus

M&M
for some reason a picture of Gene Hackman flashed into my head - don't know why

"Forget about the crowds, the size of the school, their fancy uniforms, and remember what got you here. Focus on the fundamentals that we've gone over time and time again..."
We're going out with 4 players and then sneak the fifth out there when the ref is not looking.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Rufus

M&M
I see your point, but expand the thought a little. What if, for whatever reason, the coach decides he only wants 4 players on the court even though he has eligible players on the bench available (for some reason a picture of Gene Hackman flashed into my head - don't know why). After a couple of plays/minutes/whatever he finally decides to send a 5th player to check in. Are they a substitute or not? I would think they were considered a substitute in that situation wouldn't they?

I guess the point I'm trying to get to is we as officials can't read minds and understand why there are only 4 players on the court. We can determine that we have a live ball with fewer than 5 players. Once that happens any players looking to come into the game become substitutes don't they?

In any "normal" dead-ball situation, we would be counting players and getting that 5th player on the floor before putting the ball in play. Case play 3.1.1 tells us that a team must play with 5 if there are 5 available. However, this play happend because a team was delaying coming out of the huddle, so the officials did not have the opportunity to count and make sure all 5 were on the court.

As far as what is a "substitute", I don't think there's a specific definition, although I would probably argue the generic definition that in order to substitute, you must be replacing someone. In the OP, A5 wasn't replacing anyone, but rather they were actually one of the 5 players that were supposed to be on the floor. And, the case play tells us the reason for the T is not because of sub coming on the floor illegally, but due to one of the 5 players not returning at the same time.

[Back In The Saddle]

Do we know for certain that A5 was a player at the end of the previous quarter? A5's actions would indicate that she was not, and knew she had to wait for an opportunity to sub legally. If that were the case, I'd expect to see A6, the player being replaced, come running onto the floor.

Of course, it could just be a case of A5 has never seen that kind of situation and brain locked.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Probably did, especially since the OP said the 4 teammates were playing defense. But I just wanted to make sure.

So, what do you think - if A5 stayed at the table, would you still call the T per 10.1.9?

If A5 stays at the table...no T. I believe that the T is for "returning" to the court at a different time....not for not returning at all. If they don't return with the rest, the team has to play with 4 until there is an opportunity to sub. The T is to discourage a player from "hiding" OOB and popping onto the court for an advantage or possible advantage.