4 Players.

[just another ref]

Couple of question on this issue? Why does the committee choose to treat these two situation differently? Both plays are simple misunderstandings. Why have a T for one but not the other?




Next question: What if there were multiple substitutions during a timeout?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Couple of question on this issue? Why does the committee choose to treat these two situation differently? Both plays are simple misunderstandings. Why have a T for one but not the other?

I don't know. I agree with your criticism of the lack of a consistent approach. I have argued in the past that both situations should warrant a technical foul.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Next question: What if there were multiple substitutions during a timeout?

I believe that the provision for "following a time-out or intermission" has primacy... = WHACK.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the provision for "following a time-out or intermission" has primacy... = WHACK.

I tend to believe that too, but I can't really say why.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I tend to believe that too, but I can't really say why.

The why is simply this. Either there was a time-out/intermission or there wasn't. That is a discernible fact which is indisputable.
If there was, then the rule for returning to the court following such applies, whether there are also substitutions is unimportant. The team members are returning to the court following a time-out or intermission, so that's what counts.

[Rich]

I think it's a miserable case play, personally. This is one situation where I think the situation deserves a technical foul and the only way to avoid it *should* be to play with four until the next dead ball.

But I will do as the case play says, of course.