New one for me...

[jkohls]

BJV last night. Start of the 2Q, I'm lead. Both huddles are slow coming out on the second horn. Trail administers throwin to V, and we go. About 10 seconds in C, tableside, blows the whistle. He waves me over, and says a player got up from the bench and ran onto the floor, passing him as he ran in. T says he counted 5 before handing the ball for the throw in, and C and myself both said we also counted 5. We assess the technical and I go to the V bench to explain. I tell him that we had V11 entering, during play and without being beckoned. He tells me that 11 had been on the floor when the ball was inbounded, got counfused about if he was supposed to be in the game, and sat down. According to the coach, since he had been on the floor legally at the throw in, that gave him the right to come back in as he did. I told him that in that case, his player had left the floor iliegally and the technical was still correct. His response? "Well, it worked last Tuesday."

It was an interesting situation for us, and the coach's response was very interesting...

[just another ref]

Leaving the floor for an authorized reason is a violation, not a technical.

[jkohls]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Leaving the floor for an authorized reason is a violation, not a technical.

We discussed it at half and that came up, but since the player then returned to the floor after sitting down on the bench, we still get we were correct, even if we may have fumbled the explanation.

How would you,oh wise ones, haave handled the situation?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by jkohls

We discussed it at half and that came up, but since the player then returned to the floor after sitting down on the bench, we still get we were correct, even if we may have fumbled the explanation.

How would you,oh wise ones, haave handled the situation?

whats up with the retarded *** attitude. you got an answer as to how and what you should have done.

[drshawnpet]

No one saw player leave floor for unauthorized reason --can't call violation; I would go with team tech for not returning at approximately same time following intermission.

[Adam]

This T should be ignored if there's no advantage gained by the player coming onto the court. IOW, if it's not deceitful or advantageous, ignore it.

[drshawnpet]

I agree it should be ignored if not deceitful; once whistle is blown, though, can you just 'wave it off' or does it now need to be addressed?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drshawnpet

I agree it should be ignored if not deceitful; once whistle is blown, though, can you just 'wave it off' or does it now need to be addressed?

Just go IW and put it back in play. I remember a case play or interp that deals with this and explicitly says to not call the T here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just go IW and put it back in play. I remember a case play or interp that deals with this and explicitly says to not call the T here.

Oh?

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)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Oh?

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)

Interesting. I guess I was conflating the two situations.

Originally Posted by jkohls

BJV last night. Start of the 2Q, I'm lead. Both huddles are slow coming out on the second horn. Trail administers throwin to V, and we go. About 10 seconds in C, tableside, blows the whistle. He waves me over, and says a player got up from the bench and ran onto the floor, passing him as he ran in. T says he counted 5 before handing the ball for the throw in, and C and myself both said we also counted 5. We assess the technical and I go to the V bench to explain. I tell him that we had V11 entering, during play and without being beckoned. He tells me that 11 had been on the floor when the ball was inbounded, got counfused about if he was supposed to be in the game, and sat down. According to the coach, since he had been on the floor legally at the throw in, that gave him the right to come back in as he did. I told him that in that case, his player had left the floor iliegally and the technical was still correct. His response? "Well, it worked last Tuesday."

It was an interesting situation for us, and the coach's response was very interesting...

Originally Posted by jkohls

We discussed it at half and that came up, but since the player then returned to the floor after sitting down on the bench, we still get we were correct, even if we may have fumbled the explanation.

How would you,oh wise ones, haave handled the situation?

So, tell me, to whom did you charge the Technical foul?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, tell me, to whom did you charge the Technical foul?

Rasheed Wallace.

[gslefeb]

According to the OP, the player did return to the court for the start of the 2nd qtr;

1. Team V had five players to start qtr. Therefore Sit 12 A does not apply.

2. V11 leaves court - violation? (not called)

3. V11 then comes back on to the court; is this a T for not being beckoned? I think Sit 12 B applies - A5 is supposed to be on the court, and A5's return is not deceitful - therefore play on or IW.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

V11 then comes back on to the court; is this a T for not being beckoned?

Is he a substitute or a player?

A substitute shall not enter the court without reporting to the scorer; and without being beckoned by an official, except between periods.

[gslefeb]

BillyMac

I agree - Sub or player? Sit 12 B - seems to indicate the 5th is a player and therefore can come onto the court.

[jkohls]

Thanks for the replies.

And sorry to offend, deecee. I didn't intend to convey a "retarded *** attitude." I read the board often and respect the views of the experienced officials who post. Therefore, I asked how they might have handled the situation.