Table Doesn't Tell Officials That the Player Fouled Out
 

A1 called for a foul. Ball put back into play. Table now realizes that A1 has 5 fouls.

What should the table do? Do they want until the next dead ball to inform the officials?

2-11-3 ...
 

2-11-3 The scorer shall: Signal the officials by using the game horn or a sounding device unlike that used by the referee and umpire(s). This may be used immediately if, or as soon as, the ball is dead or is in control of the offending team.

2-11-11 NOTE 2. The procedure if a player who has committed his/her fifth foul continues to play
because the scorer has failed to notify the official is as follows: As soon as the scorer
discovers the irregularity, the game horn should be sounded after, or as soon as, the
ball is in control of the offending team or is dead. The disqualified player must be
removed immediately. Any points which may have been scored while such player was
illegally in the game are counted. If other aspects of the error are correctable, the
procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials.

Also, check out 2-11-11 Notes 2

I would like some carification on the last part. If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials. What does this meen exactly?

Just what it says. If any of the action falls under the purview of the five correctable errors listed in 2-10, then the officials shall take the proper action.

Note that a player with five fouls, but who has not yet been disqualified by notification to the coach from an official is not a wrong player attempting a FT. The NFHS has ruled that such a player is the proper player until being DQ'd.

So can you think of a for instance for my simple mind. I had thought of the free-throw but had drawn the same conclusion as you stated. Just trying to get a hold on what this means in real life.:D

Sure, consider that a player with five fouls remains in the game for several minutes. During this time some other situation occurs which is a correctable error and this gets the attention of the officials and the table crew. At this point the scorer notices that the player should have been DQ'd a few minutes ago, but wasn't. The rule tells you to take care of the DQ now and allow all other action to count, with the exception of the pending correctable error. The rules-writers wanted to make it clear that a correctable error is never ignored because of some other factor. That's all that this is saying.

Got it. I was trying to read to much into it. Thanks Nevada:cool:

Scorebook not doing job
 

How was play able to continue, if the one player was DQ'd due to having 5 fouls?

I have done both scoreboard/timer & scorebook operations for the past 4 years at my Alma Mater. Every time I learned of a player having 5 fouls I immediately let the coach & floor officials know of the DQ.

Sounds like to me that those doing scoreboard/timer & scorebook need to learn their positions.

If I Didn't Say It, You All Know That Mark Padgett Would Have Said It ...
 

Sounds like they need to read the Kama Sutra.

Not only read the Kama Sutra, but they also need to be properly trained how to do table operations.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

It happens. As evidenced here.
Names redacted in the following situation:

3-pointer from the top of the key made it a 71-66 game with 2:39 to play. But the [Xs] watched as the [Ys] struck for five straight points in a 30-second span, four by [Y1] and a free throw by [Y2], tying the game at 71-71 with 2:01 on the clock.

[X1] hit a pair of free throws as part of his 14-point fourth quarter, but [Y2] and [Y1] answered right back with back-to-back buckets, finally giving [Team Y] the lead at 75-73 with just over a minute left in the game.

Ironically, the [Ys] should never have owned the lead. [Y1] re-entered the game with 3:02 remaining, but he had committed his fifth foul earlier in the fourth. It wasn't until he picked up his sixth foul that the officials claimed responsibility for the mistake and did not punish [Team Y], so [Y1]'s six points during the 9-2 run remained a key factor.

Just the facts, please
 

This part is speculation. Y6 might have performed just as well. Who knows?

Becuause of the oversight of not reporting the 5th foul on the player, wouldn't it be considered an administrative technical against that team's scorebook?

Being that I've had training for both scorebook & scoreboard/timer, I've learned from doing the number of games I've done to be in constant communication between the books & the scoreboard to make sure the books match the board.

My reasoning for stating that the people need to be trained better is that I've seen too many instances happen where the person doing the scorebook is not reporting the game properly, compared to the scoreboard, & vice versa. :cool:

There is no provision in any of the codes (NFHS, NCAA, NBA) to give a technical foul because the table did not inform the officials of a player's fifth foul.

And you're absolutely correct that in a perfect world, table crew would be trained and competent, but we have to do with what we can as officials, especially at the sub-varsity level. And as Nevadaref pointed out, even at the highest levels, where people are paid to do this, mistakes happen.

The official scorer is NOT considered to be associated with either team, even though the home team most likely provided the person. The scorer is a neutral member of the officiating crew, so there is no way to penalize either team for the conduct or incompetence of this person.

I thought you knew all the rules based on your practice of reviewing the POEs and taking the test every year?

It's great that you take this seriously. I wish more table crews did. But, your posts here come across as being more than just a little bit full of yourself.

I was at a BYU game a few years ago, the first D1 game I had been to live in a very long time. The one observation that really stuck with me was, "Wow, there were sure a lot of time outs in that game." Sure enough, the next day the news reported BYU having gotten an unnoticed extra time out. I've met their scorekeeper, he's a good guy who has done the job for a lot of years and takes it very seriously. But stuff will happen sometimes, even to the "real pros".

Yes, Bob I review the POEs, & the rule changes every year. However the rules clinic I view are for the General Public View. The test is not graded, nor sent into the state association like I believe it is for the coaches. I had never actually seen of the sitch happening before & had not seen any rules stating what the consequence(s) should be.

Actually I wish the test was graded & sent into the state association.

What would lead the officials to think they made a mistake here? I am guessing that when he was assessed his fifth foul earlier in the quarter, the improper procedure was used and the coach and player were not notified? If Y1 fouled out and the coach/player were properly notified, then couldn't the officials assess that the Y Coach was unsportsmanlike by re-entering Y1, knowing he had already committed 5 fouls? I'm confused on this one and would ask for clarification.

Yes -- direct foul on Coach Y (assuming the proper procedure was followed).

The official went to the bench and said, "Coach, that's five," but apparently didn't have the attention of the coach. The official felt that he didn't do a proper job of communicating the information and chose to accept the responsibility for the error. The problem developed when the player with five fouls either never left the game despite a substitute entering at that time or returned undetected at a later time.

So it seems to be unclear whether the proper procedure was followed.

Hmmm. How is this different than the 6 player tech discussion in the other thread?

Exactly what I was thinking. ;)

I didn't say that it was. I can state that the officials have a duty to notify the coach and the player on a DQ.

So, in your opinion, was that done in this case?

BTW I was not at this game.