4 Players.
 

We really screwed the pouch. After a time out we started with 5 on offense and 4 on defense. When do you blow the whistle?

Had this exact scenario today. At midcourt, ball on baseline back court. I had subs coming in, and hand the "Stop Sign" out for my partner. As I am counting the players, I see confusion at the bench and only 4 players on the court. I keep my stop sign up, and double check to see if I hadn't missed anyone. I don't see my partner put the ball in, but I IMMEDIATELY blew the whistle and killed it. Since my hand was still clearly up I didn't want to have someone run onto the court and then we get into a furball T.
All that to say, if no one notices there are only 4 until the ball is in play then that team plays with 4 until the next dead ball when they can legally sub

As long as they don't give themselves an unfair advantage, that fifth player can come back anytime.

I believe there's a case play that says exactly what Rich does, I'll have to check tomorrow.

This is kind of a gray area, is it not? The rule says the team must not fail to have all players return at approximately the same time. PERIOD

In the case play given, the technical is called when B5 reenters just in time to catch a long pass, thus apparently gaining an advantage.

Edit: Maybe not so gray.

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return, and he/she sprints onto the court and catches up with play. RULING: In (a), the officials shall stop play and assess a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out. The technical foul counts toward the team-foul count. In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court. COMMENT: Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage, teams are expected to return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out. The officials should have also followed the prescribed mechanics and counted the number of players on the court, ensuring each team has the legal number of players. (10-1-9; 10-3-3)

In this case, as soon as you notice that the team only has four, unless the opponent is in the process of scoring, then you should wait until that action finishes.

Unlike after a time-out or intermission, the recent NFHS case play ruling (posted by JAR above) says that following confusion during a substitution process there is no technical foul as long as the player returns to the court without gaining an unfair advantage.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

It should be clarified. This is from 07-08 interps, not the case book.

True, this NFHS ruling was split into two separate plays when added to the Case Book. They are 10.1.9 and 10.3.2 Situation B.