Sub not in game for disqualified player

[just another ref]

Six players on the floor does not keep the ball from being put in play. Put it in play and call that T if you want. But the jillion other times this has been discussed the consensus is always count the players, hold up 6 fingers to the coach, and proceed from there.

10-3-5 does not seem to fit here to me.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by CoachJW

A1 commits an and-1 foul. Team B is at the FT line to shoot the one free throw, players are lined up. The table informs the reporting official that it was A1's fifth personal foul. Team A's coach calls his players over to talk during the 20 seconds that he has at his disposal to get his sub in the game. The 20 seconds is up, they break the huddle, and player A1 is still on the court, walking to the other end of the court to line up for the free throw.
I was Team B's coach, so I noticed he was still on the court and asked the table, "Didn't #15 foul out?" and they said yes. At that point, Team A's coach noticed that he was still on the court and got him to come back to the sideline. The officials saw this whole thing and didn't do anything, so I protested that Team A should be assessed a T or at least a DOG warning (and they had been catching the ball after it went through the net all night, and that was never called either) since they had an ineligible player on the floor after the 20 seconds. It seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and one of the officials has a great reputation locally and usually calls a pretty good game.

I didn't make a huge stink (with one T in seven years of coaching, I'm generally mild-mannered), but I wondered if people on this board would have handled it differently.

As an aside, the issue of the DOG warning on a made basket/scoring team catches the ball after it goes through the net seems inconsistent with our local referees. I'm wondering if there are guys out there who will only call that if the player catches it and throws it off to the side, taps it, etc, or if you call it any time they even touch it. Thanks and I always appreciate the responses and information I can get from the officials on the board.

Coach,
The 20 second count does NOT start until the official asks for the 20 second clock count for the DQed player.

You did not indicate in your post that the official notified the coach of the disqualification. If the coach happens to KNOW that this is the 5th foul on one of his players, he could possibly get 25 or so seconds since the 20 second period does not START until AFTER the coach has been informed of the disqualification AND the official has indicated that the 20 second timer is to start. While most HS timers are very good at the 15 second warning horn and the timing of the ready to play horn, many are NOT familiar with the 20 second disqualification clock. If the official happened to fail to notify the timer to start the 20 second timer, an additional delay could have resulted here.

You also did not indicate that an official notified the disqualified player that he was disqualified. Some players HOPE that the scorer may have made a mistake and will act as though the foul is NOT his 5th foul. Since the FTs would have been on the opposite end of the court from the bench, this combination of
1. an alert coach quickly meeting with players as soon as the whistle stopped play,
2. a player HOPING that he did not foul out,
3. a player perhaps not notified immediately by the official that he had committed his 5th foul (in some cases, it is not a matter of hope as much as lack of paying attention),
4. a timer not intimately familiar with the 20 second clock (although he should have been based on your team's previous DQ's),
and
5. a referee not in a huge hurry to get the game going (sounds like you may have had Nevadaref's brother in at least one of your prior games)

can lead to a break in the action of a bit more than 20 seconds. Hardly something worth getting upset about, in my opinion, as a coach.

REMEMBER: YOU, as the coach of the opposing team, are also allowed to use this 20 second period as a "mini timeout" AND YOU don't have to worry about getting a sub to the table in the allotted 20 seconds.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CoachJW

thus have become an expert on the 20-second replacement period and using it like a miniature timeout (which I know the rules are trying to discourage).

Very true. Actually was an NFHS POE a couple of seasons ago, and various states have experimented with different ideas to speed up this process.

Originally Posted by CoachJW

Last week I had an official breathing down my neck 3 feet away as I was huddling my kids for, at most, 10 seconds. He was interrupting me and saying, "Coach, I don't want to T you up, get your sub in! Get your sub in! You only have 10 seconds coach, let's go, let's go!" He wasn't very professional to say the least, and I know for sure that if my DQ'ed player had stayed on the floor after my huddle, he would have T'ed me up.

You may wish to look at this from the official's point of view. He is doing what he is supposed to by encouraging you to make sure that your sub is there in time. Would you rather that he not a say a single word to you, and then issue a T as soon as that horn sounds, while your sub is on the way to the table to report? Coaches cannot ever be pleased by the officials, and this is a d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't situation.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

(sounds like you may have had Nevadaref's brother in at least one of your prior games)

How do you know it wasn't actually me?

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

REMEMBER: YOU, as the coach of the opposing team, are also allowed to use this 20 second period as a "mini timeout" AND YOU don't have to worry about getting a sub to the table in the allotted 20 seconds.

This is exactly what the NFHS is striving to prevent. You are part of the problem if you are failing to administer the game properly as an official. The coach should have to worry about getting a sub to the table in the allotted 20 seconds each and every time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is exactly what the NFHS is striving to prevent. You are part of the problem if you are failing to administer the game properly as an official. The coach should have to worry about getting a sub to the table in the allotted 20 seconds each and every time.

Nevada, I think he's saying when a player is disqualified, the opposing coach can also use that time for a de facto TO, without the responsibility of sending a sub to the table.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada, I think he's saying when a player is disqualified, the opposing coach can also use that time for a de facto TO, without the responsibility of sending a sub to the table.

Yeah, but I think that he is also trying to justify the lack of imposing a penalty upon the team with the fouled-out player being late with their substitution by stating that all is equal because the opposing coach can also talk with his players during this time.
That's not the point of the 20-second limit nor is it how the NFHS wants this to work. The idea is to keep the game moving.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yeah, but I think that he is also trying to justify the lack of imposing a penalty upon the team with the fouled-out player being late with their substitution by stating that all is equal because the opposing coach can also talk with his players during this time.
That's not the point of the 20-second limit nor is it how the NFHS wants this to work. The idea is to keep the game moving.

I agree. In the OP, though, the sub reported prior to the horn. Now, it's up to the official to get the game going, as they broke their "huddle" as soon as the horn sounded.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree. In the OP, though, the sub reported prior to the horn. Now, it's up to the official to get the game going, as they broke their "huddle" as soon as the horn sounded.

Yep, and if we ask why the officials can't get the game going again at this point, then we see very clearly that it is because there is a team member out there on the court who shouldn't be, even after being subbed for, and this person is the one who is preventing the ball from being promptly made live. Hence my advocating a T under 10-3-5a.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, and if we ask why the officials can't get the game going again at this point, then we see very clearly that it is because there is a team member out there on the court who shouldn't be, even after being subbed for, and this person is the one who is preventing the ball from being promptly made live. Hence my advocating a T under 10-3-5a.

Is your take on this different in the case of the disqualification, or do you advocate a T every time subs come in and you count 6 on the floor as you prepare to put the ball in play?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is your take on this different in the case of the disqualification, or do you advocate a T every time subs come in and you count 6 on the floor as you prepare to put the ball in play?

It is different in the case of a disqualification because of the official notification and 20-second replacement interval which have just taken place. There shouldn't be any confusion about this individual's right to be on the court at this point. During a substitution process or following a time-out confusion about which five should be out there is certainly possible.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is different in the case of a disqualification because of the official notification and 20-second replacement interval which have just taken place. There shouldn't be any confusion about this individual's right to be on the court at this point. During a substitution process or following a time-out confusion about which five should be out there is certainly possible.

Agreed, there shouldn't be. But apparently in the OP there was. I find it hard to call a T based on confusion if I have any opportunity not to do so.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed, there shouldn't be. But apparently in the OP there was. I find it hard to call a T based on confusion if I have any opportunity not to do so.

In some cases confusion is plausible and in others it isn't. I guess we disagree here because after just notifying the coach and the player of the DQ and having waited through a 20-second replacement interval, I'm whacking the kid if he is still out there on the court. I don't find it hard to call a T in this case at all.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nevada, I think he's saying when a player is disqualified, the opposing coach can also use that time for a de facto TO, without the responsibility of sending a sub to the table.

Shaqs is exactly right, here. My point is that as a coach of the opposing team, I know that most coaches want to use as much of the 20 seconds as they can. As a COACH, I am less concerned about how quickly the OFFICIALS get the game going -- the longer the delay allowed by the OFFICIALS the longer my mini-time out. My point is that rather than worrying about how long the other coach is taking and trying to argue with the OFFICIAL, I quietly go about coaching my team.

As an OFFICIAL, I always try to follow the procedures in an efficient manner thus keeping the game moving. While the coach in the OP may have failed to describe EVERYTHING, there were some things missing.

For example, EXACTLY when was the coach notified of the disqualification? When was the timer notified to start the 20 second clock? When was the disqualified player notified by one of the officials?

I know that Nevada is all ready to issue a "T" here, but the OP NEVER stated that the PLAYER was notified of the disqualification -- this is a REQUIREMENT per our procedures.

As an official, I want to keep the game moving. The best and most effective way to do that is to QUICKLY implement the procedures: notify the coach IMMEDIATELY after the scorer informs the official that the player has five fouls (I usually know when I, or one of my partners, calls a fifth foul on a player BEFORE the notification), tell the timer to start the clock (and remind about the warning horn in five seconds), make sure that the PLAYER knows that he has committed his fifth foul AND be ready to beckon the substitute at the table BEFORE the second horn.

While the purpose of the 20 second rule is to keep the game moving, I believe that it is inappropriate for a referee to RUSH the process beyond what the rules allow. I will typically REMIND the coach that he must have a sub at the table within 20 seconds. I will then follow up at the warning horn to indicate first horn, a sub must be ready at the table BEFORE the second horn. I will then go to an area near the scorer's table to prepare to wave the sub onto the floor to get the game moving, again.

I think that it is inappropriate for an OFFICIAL to talk through the entire 20 seconds.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree. In the OP, though, the sub reported prior to the horn. Now, it's up to the official to get the game going, as they broke their "huddle" as soon as the horn sounded.

One thing that has failed to be addressed. As soon as the sub reports to the table the officials should get the game going. Not after the 20-second horn and not after the team breaks the huddle.

As soon as that sub gets to the table we should be proceeding with the game.

[tjones1]

Re: Post #44

M&M... are you off your meds and posting under a different name now?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

One thing that has failed to be addressed. As soon as the sub reports to the table the officials should get the game going. Not after the 20-second horn and not after the team breaks the huddle.

As soon as that sub gets to the table we should be proceeding with the game.

I guess my assumption here has been that the sub reported close enough to the horn that this wasn't an issue; based on the fact that the officials didn't know and had to ask if he'd reported on time.

Frankly, while I think the officials were correct in not assessing the T here, I think that's about the only part of the situation they got right.

1. They shouldn't have had to ask whether he reported on time. I'm typically standing at the table waiting for the sub; I'll know if he reported on time.

2. It really doesn't seem like they informed the player it was his fifth foul. I've never seen a player come back after being informed it was his fifth. The oversight in #1 leads me to believe that this is as likely as not.