T during chseagle's game

[jdw3018]

I agree with Snaqwells. My interpretation is that 'entering the court' would be a player stepping into the action from the bench or running onto the court to celebrate/complain or anything other than becoming a legitimate player.

A player going onto the court to replace another player is a substitute not being beckoned in my book.

That said, I can also see a point of view that any player who comes directly from the bench to the court without attempting to check in falls into the former category.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I agree with Snaqwells. My interpretation is that 'entering the court' would be a player stepping into the action from the bench or running onto the court to celebrate/complain or anything other than becoming a legitimate player.

A player going onto the court to replace another player is a substitute not being beckoned in my book.

That said, I can also see a point of view that any player who comes directly from the bench to the court without attempting to check in falls into the former latter category.

10.2.1 Situation B
Team A subsitute No. 24: (a) reports to the scorer, but enters the court without being beckoned; or (b) goes directly from the bench and onto the court without being beckoned.

Ruling: One technical foul is charged to No. 24 in (a) and (b). In (b), even though No. 24 failed to comply with both requirements, only one foul is charged.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tjones1

10.2.1 Situation B
Team A subsitute No. 24: (a) reports to the scorer, but enters the court without being beckoned; or (b) goes directly from the bench and onto the court without being beckoned.

Ruling: One technical foul is charged to No. 24 in (a) and (b). In (b), even though No. 24 failed to comply with both requirements, only one foul is charged.

Good case play. This is why I should carry my case book with me always.

I actually agree with the case book. I was attempting to say that I could see the argument that a player coming directly from the bench is a bench personnel tech rather than a substitute tech, which was the former.

However, it appears that is clearly the wrong interpretation. Glad my "gut" is right.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I agree with Snaqwells. My interpretation is that 'entering the court' would be a player stepping into the action from the bench or running onto the court to celebrate/complain or anything other than becoming a legitimate player.

A player going onto the court to replace another player is a substitute not being beckoned in my book.

That said, I can also see a point of view that any player who comes directly from the bench to the court without attempting to check in falls into the former category.

Once he left the court he became bench personnel and was not eligible to return until time had run off the clock, so he is not a legal substitute. From the OP's description he simply rushed back onto the court - didn't report to the table or wait for anything. IMHO this would make it a bench technical.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Once he left the court he became bench personnel and was not eligible to return until time had run off the clock, so he is not a legal substitute. From the OP's description he simply rushed back onto the court - didn't report to the table or wait for anything. IMHO this would make it a bench technical.

Would your opinion change if he'd gone to the table first and then ran onto the court? I don't think the fact that he's not eligible to return at that point is relevant.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Would your opinion change if he'd gone to the table first and then ran onto the court? I don't think the fact that he's not eligible to return at that point is relevant.

Nope, wouldn't change my opinion. If he's not eligible to re-enter, then he's still bench personnel, not a substitute. That said, I have no problem whether the official chooses to assess a bench technical or substitute technical - justification can be made for either position.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Nope, wouldn't change my opinion. If he's not eligible to re-enter, then he's still bench personnel, not a substitute. That said, I have no problem whether the official chooses to assess a bench technical or substitute technical - justification can be made for either position.

Hmm...interesting. Can see that point of view, though I'm not yet swayed.

Before a throw-in, A1 enters for A2. Upon the ball being placed at the disposal of the thrower, both A2 and A3 head to the table to check in.

A violation occurs before the throw-in ends. Both A2 and A3 immediately run onto the court without being beckoned. Official calls technical fouls on both.

Your position would be that the T on A2 is for bench personnel entering the court without authorization and that the T on A3 is a substitute technical for entering the court without being beckoned?

[Amesman]

A2 and A3 are not equally eligible to be subs and therefore carry different status.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Amesman

A2 and A3 are not equally eligible to be subs and therefore carry different status.

Disagree. The rule is the same; they are subs. If they come running in from the table without being beckoned, they get the same penalty. I highly doubt the intent of the rules requires us to split this hair.

The case play already posted makes no mention of whether the sub was immediately eligible or not. Personally, I think it's a mistake to pin this on the coach (the OP), but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I think the error is understandable since the official actually heard the coach say "get out there."

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Amesman

A2 and A3 are not equally eligible to be subs and therefore carry different status.

So, I'm to take from this statement, that you would charge the coach with one indirect technical foul in my situation?