9 players on the floor.
 

Here is the play as it was described to me.

Boys HS JV
Warning horn sounds to signify end of timeout. T gives go ahead point to L who puts the ball in the play. After the ball becomes live L and A5 realize that there are only 9 players on the floor. The A5, who had been on the floor before the timeout, runs onto the floor from the bench during a live ball and joins into the action. A5 does not gain any specific advantage such as a snow bird or blind side steal.

Officials stop the game and charge A5 with a techincal foul.
Following the game 2 varsity officials ask what happened then say since there was no advantage when A5 ran onto the floor and they were a player before the timeout that it should have been a no call. They also said there was a play in the case book about this situation.

I can't seem to find it.
Thoughts and reactions?

Don't have my books but I'm quite sure there is a case play that says this play is legal.

NOT legal if following a TO. 10.1.9

Legal if following a "lengthy substitution process." 10.3.2B

The officials in the OP got it right (well, they got it right after putting the ball in play, but for me to chide them for that would be the pot calling the kettle black).

case book 10.3.2 situation B: No technical should be issued if no unfair advantage was gained.

Case 10.3.2 Sit. B is very close to this scenario. It speaks to lengthy substitution situation instead of time out. I think as described in the OP the play is legal.

Apparently Gargil types faster that me:D

I had both fingers flying across the keyboard:D

We just had this discussion very recently. It is confusing that the case play 10.1.9 is written to indicate advantage gained, but this is not specified by the rule. The rule states this is a technical foul.

Did you guys read 10.1.9 as Bob pointed to?

BTW, I'm not sure they got it right if they charged the T to A5. It should have been a team T. Section 10-1 is Team Technicals, and the rule broken is 10-1-9.

What if there were multiple substitutions during the timeout. It seems to me that the intent of the rule is to not penalize if no advantage was gained.
10.1.9 was written involving a team gaining an advantage. Would they have the same result if the case play was written so no unfair advantage was gained? Though you are correct, as written this should have been a "T"

The case doesn't specify, frankly, that it would be different without an advantage.

Personally, if the situation happened during a timeout with multiple substitutions, I'd go with the rule for the timeout. There should be no confusion following a timeout.

More importantly, however, from the officials' perspective, count the players on the court before you put the ball in play. "Coach, we need one more."

+1...agree with Bob.

Two different rules covering two different situations. One situation is after a timeout with no substitution. There's no reason to give any benefit of the doubt re: any confusion in that situation. The other situation is after multiple substitutions. In that case, there could be some confusion and the rulesmakers allowed for that.

JR (and Bob) are absolutely correct. I realize that Mark P already has this in another thread, but, I would really like to see consistency in the rules concerning four players. As I have stated before, I fail to see any advantage to having four players on the court -- as long as one does not "jump into the play" and gain an advantage (which is already covered by the "lengthy substitution" situation).

Eliminating these technicals would help improve game flow and game management. Too many players is illegal and, in most cases, represents a huge advantage and should be penalized. Too few players does not.