Interesting Technical Situation

[rgncjn]

Watched this situation unfold the other evening at a local high school varsity boys game.

Team A turns the ball over in their front court. Substitute B6 has reported to the scorer and is waiting to enter the game. The center official (opposite table) sounds his whistle, sticks his hand to up signal to the other official to hold play. Substitute B6 is beckoned on to the playing court by the center official.

B6 enters the court and reports to B1 that he is being replaced. During this, the new trail official has administered the ball for the throw-in that Team B recieved as a result of Team A's turnover. Play is stopped instantly when the trail official realizes that Team B has 6 players on the court.

A technical foul is assessed to Team B for having more than five players on the court.

Is this an administrative technical for having more than five players on the court? Is this a technical foul in B6 for entering the court (even though he was beckoned)? Is this a technical foul on B1 for not leaving the court?

The official who beckoned B6 on to the floor did not come in and tell the calling official that he beckoned him on, and instead went ahead and agreed with assessing the technical foul.

When I spoke to one of the officials after the game (a good friend), I asked how they assessed the technical foul. He said that they charged the technical to B1 for not promptly leaving the court. Rules citation?

[Chess Ref]

The old dogs will be here soon enough for the dotting the "i"s and crossing the T's part of discussion. But that just sounds like an official rushing to get the ball in play. I know I've rushed also but player did have permission to come on the court.

Unless the player leaving is slow as molasses AND being a butthead ,giving a T for this is not good. IMHO...

[Ignats75]

If I'm trail, it doesn't happen. If I'm R, there is no effin way I'm going to allow a T to be assessed in this situation and the T and I are going to have a little "chat" when we get to the locker room. If I'm not the R, I'm still having that chat. No way I would penalize a team because one of my partners was an idiot.

The FIRST thing and I truly mean FIRST thing I say in a pregame is "DON'T EFFIN INBOUND THE BALL UNTIL YOUR PARTNERS ARE READY." What, did I stutter?

[Nevadaref]

Once the officials screw up and put the ball in play while one team has six people on the court, there is nothing that can be done to avoid assessing a technical foul whether we like it or not. The rules simply require it.

True, that this was the mistake of the officiating crew for not communicating better, but the ball became live and that's the end of it.

The technical foul is not charged to any specific individual. It is a TEAM technical foul per 10-1-6.

[Adam]

I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm charging the T on this one. It's the equivalent of a cop getting in your car and asking how fast your car can go before giving you a speeding ticket.
This isn't even like the officials forgetting to count. The kid was beckoned onto the court.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm charging the T on this one. [snip]
This isn't even like the officials forgetting to count. The kid was beckoned onto the court.

So are you going to erase the game action which took place?
Are you resetting the game clock to what it was prior to the throw-in and re-doing the throw-in as if the play never happened?
What rules support do you have for that?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The technical foul is not charged to any specific individual. It is a TEAM technical foul per 10-1-6.

I agree that's the penalty if a T is assessed.

In the OP -- if the C still had his/her hand up, waiting for B1 to leave, then the ball never became live, despite U2's best efforts. No T, reset everything, administer the throw-in.

If C dropped his hand, indicating play should resume, and the U2 administers the throw-in, then you have no choice but to assess the T.

(Of course, maybe it's a stretch to assume C used proper mechanics. So, change the above to "if C knew before the ball became live that B1 hadn't left, no T. Otherwise T.")

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In the OP -- if the C still had his/her hand up, waiting for B1 to leave, then the ball never became live, despite U2's best efforts. No T, reset everything, administer the throw-in.

If C dropped his hand, indicating play should resume, and the U2 administers the throw-in, then you have no choice but to assess the T.

(Of course, maybe it's a stretch to assume C used proper mechanics. So, change the above to "if C knew before the ball became live that B1 hadn't left, no T. Otherwise T.")

This is what isn't clear in the OP. Did C signal that play was ready to begin? Was C under the impression the ball was again live? Or was, in his mind, the ball still dead because he was waiting for the substitution to be complete?

Whether C is using proscribed mechanics or not, if the ball is dead in his mind, he has the ability to say "I'm still holding up play for this to complete. The ball never became live."

Obviously if I'm standing on the court with my hand up like I should be in the situation it's much easier to explain, but regardless, the ball is dead if I (as an official) want it to be.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In the OP -- if the C still had his/her hand up, waiting for B1 to leave, then the ball never became live, despite U2's best efforts. No T, reset everything, administer the throw-in.

If C dropped his hand, indicating play should resume, and the U2 administers the throw-in, then you have no choice but to assess the T.

(Of course, maybe it's a stretch to assume C used proper mechanics. So, change the above to "if C knew before the ball became live that B1 hadn't left, no T. Otherwise T.")

I had this exact situation in my game last week. I was in C standing at mid court holding my hand up to stop play as I turned and watched the replace player begin to trot to the bench at the other end of the court. As he passed me I watched him and then looked to the end line where my partner had just put the ball in play. My partner looked at the player trotting off the court, then looked at me with my hand up. No one said a word, except in the locker room where my partner apologized for not seeing my hand up. We couldn't justify giving the team a T for our mistake.

If my partner would have acted like he was going to I would have blown my whistle and come in and emphatically informed him of the entire situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree that's the penalty if a T is assessed.

In the OP -- if the C still had his/her hand up, waiting for B1 to leave, then the ball never became live, despite U2's best efforts. No T, reset everything, administer the throw-in.

If C dropped his hand, indicating play should resume, and the U2 administers the throw-in, then you have no choice but to assess the T.

(Of course, maybe it's a stretch to assume C used proper mechanics. So, change the above to "if C knew before the ball became live that B1 hadn't left, no T. Otherwise T.")

Exactly!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree that's the penalty if a T is assessed.

In the OP -- if the C still had his/her hand up, waiting for B1 to leave, then the ball never became live, despite U2's best efforts. No T, reset everything, administer the throw-in.

If C dropped his hand, indicating play should resume, and the U2 administers the throw-in, then you have no choice but to assess the T.

(Of course, maybe it's a stretch to assume C used proper mechanics. So, change the above to "if C knew before the ball became live that B1 hadn't left, no T. Otherwise T.")

The ball becomes live on the throw-in when the administering official, the T in this case, places it at the disposal of the thrower. That's the rule. This has nothing to do with what the C or L are doing. The C can't prevent the ball from becoming live if the T puts it in play. The best that the C can do is blow the whistle as he observes the T handing the ball to the thrower, at any point after that, it is too late.

The crew screwed up. The team gets penalized. No one likes it, including me, but that's how the rules work. We don't get to set them aside when we don't like them.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rgncjn

Team A turns the ball over in their front court. Substitute B6 has reported to the scorer and is waiting to enter the game. The center official (opposite table) sounds his whistle, sticks his hand to up signal to the other official to hold play. Substitute B6 is beckoned on to the playing court by the center official.

By this, I'm hoping you meant that they threw the ball out of bounds or violated, and so the ball was dead when the C whistled. First time I read it I was imagining C interrupting the game to bring in the sub!

As for the substantive question: I think it depends. If the trail has administered the throw-in too quickly as the substituted player is still leaving the court, I think it would be a misapplication of the rules to call a T on B for trail's poor mechanics.

However, I can also envision a situation where the substituted player is meandering off the court, the ball is put in play, and he turns around as if to participate. Especially if B has already been warned about this kind of delay, I could see calling a T here.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by rgncjn

Watched this situation unfold the other evening at a local high school varsity boys game.

Team A turns the ball over in their front court. Substitute B6 has reported to the scorer and is waiting to enter the game. The center official (opposite table) sounds his whistle, sticks his hand to up signal to the other official to hold play. Substitute B6 is beckoned on to the playing court by the center official.

B6 enters the court and reports to B1 that he is being replaced. During this, the new trail official has administered the ball for the throw-in that Team B recieved as a result of Team A's turnover. Play is stopped instantly when the trail official realizes that Team B has 6 players on the court.

A technical foul is assessed to Team B for having more than five players on the court.

Is this an administrative technical for having more than five players on the court? Is this a technical foul in B6 for entering the court (even though he was beckoned)? Is this a technical foul on B1 for not leaving the court?

The official who beckoned B6 on to the floor did not come in and tell the calling official that he beckoned him on, and instead went ahead and agreed with assessing the technical foul.

When I spoke to one of the officials after the game (a good friend), I asked how they assessed the technical foul. He said that they charged the technical to B1 for not promptly leaving the court. Rules citation?

This is a case of officials not being on the same sheet of music. A total communication breakdown. Effective Communication between partner is a must. The trail fell asleep and I would have not given a T in this case due to the fact that C clearly had his hand up to allow the sub in. It is also up to the C to relay the information to his partner that he indeed beckoned the sub on the floor. Once again, EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

[fullor30]

Nevada,

Coach tells A6 to report to table as he's standing barking instructions to team, A6 walks around coach and is now on playing floor.

What do you have?