Technical Administered or Not ??
 

This question was raised at a recent association meeting:

Intermission prior to the start of the 4th quarter. Neither team substitutes during the 1 minute intermission. Team B breaks their huddle to inbound the ball, Team A is still huddling. At the 2nd buzzer to end the intermission, Team A is still huddling, so official sounds whistle and hands the ball to A1 for throw-in to begin 4th quarter.

Four(4) players from Team A then break the huddle and race onto the court to play defense. A5 has her back to situation and turns around to see the ball in play and her teammates on the court playing defense. Confused, A5 walks to the scoring table and kneels down in front of the table, the same process that any substitute would follow while the ball is live. Following an approximate 20-second timeframe, Team A acquires possession and moves the ball to their frontcourt. At the time of the ball moving to the frontcourt, A5 rises and enters the game during the live ball. A5 entering the game was of no advantage or deceitful.

What do you have? Please site rule and casebook if applicable.

This was the official who raised the questions thoughts on the matter:

Basis for no technical foul, Case play 10.3.2 situation B, pg 80-81(2008)
A5's return to the court was not deceitful, no did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court.

Basis for yes technical foul, Case play 10.1.9 pg 79-80(2008)
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.

Go with the T. Case 10.3.2B is after a "lengthy substitution process" (or something like that), not after a resumption of play procedure.

That said, I think that the rules in this area should be changed.

Rule 10-1-9 covers it.

Ok, either I'm not following things correctly, or there was a typo by OP. First, as I read it, A1 has the throw-in, then 4 members of team A rush unto the court? Should B1 have the throw-in? Also, was A5 already on the floor and walked back to the scorer's table? Or was A5 still in the bench area, then walked to the scorer's table?

If A1 had the throw-in, with 4 teammates on the floor, then it's a T when A5 came unto the floor, per 10.2.2. If it is indeed B1's throw-in, then was A5 already on the court with 4 teammates, then walked off to the scorer's table, while A played with 4? In reading the play, it sounds like A5 stayed in the bench area, then walked to the table while her teammates played with 4, until she came out unto the court. If that's the case, then the T is covered by 10.1.9.

I think this may have been discussed before, but what if A5 stayed at the table until the next dead ball - is it still a T under 10.1.9? The case play seems to imply the T is called as soon as the player enters the court, so if A5 nevers enters (until the next proper dead ball), is there still a T, even though A is also disadvantaged by only playing with 4?

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?

Technical Administered or Not?
 

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.......

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?

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.

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.

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?

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photos/unc...hoosiers_1.jpg

"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.

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.

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. :)

That was my guess. :)