Team T?
 

Situation: A14 is shooting a 1-and-1 for a common foul. Lead bounces ball to shooter, then horn buzzes, then B24 runs on the court without being beckoned. B12 on the near block starts to leave the game, and B24 starts to take his spot on the lane. We whistle and decide we have to assess a T.

Two possibilities:
10-1-6: it's a team technical to "Have more than five team members participating simultaneously."

10-2-2: it's a player technical for a sub to enter the court "Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters."

So it sounds like an obvious violation of 10-2-2, since nobody beckoned the sub. However, look at 10.2.1(A):

10.2.1 SITUATION A: Substitute A1 enters the court without reporting to the
scorer. The infraction is discovered: (a) before the ball becomes live; or (b) after
the ball becomes live. RULING: In (a), a technical foul is charged to A1. In (b), it
is too late to penalize A1.

Since the ball was live when we "discovered" the infraction, it seems to be "too late" to penalize B24. The same principle appears in 10.2.2: you call a player T only when the ball is dead and the sub enters without being beckoned.

So here's the question: do we have different fouls depending on whether the ball is live? If it's a dead ball, we penalize under 10-2-2 with a player T, but if it's a live ball (as in our sitch) we penalize under 10-1-6 with a team T?

If you see the sub enter illegally, I think that falls within the intent; which is to penalize the proper player. 6 players is a team T because you don't know which player made the error.

Personally, I'd keep reading and go with case book play 10.2.1SitB(a).

But that's just me.....:D

I saw that, but the assumption there seems to be that both (a) and (b) occur during a dead ball. The point of the case seems to be that violating both provisions of 10-2-1 results in just a single T.

10.2.1 SITUATION B: Team A substitute 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.

OK, but how do you know that's the intent, as opposed to my idea about distinguishing live-ball from dead-ball infractions?

In particular, how do you explain the ruling in 10.2.1A (b) (posted above) according to which it's "too late" to penalize A1? If the intent of the rule were to "penalize the proper player," presumably we should assess a foul on A1.

I don't explain anything except that B24 ran on the court without being beckoned. Everybody in the gym including his coach saw him do it too. And you know that the purpose and intent of the substutution rules are to "T" up anybody who does something dumb like that. So...just do so without worrying about possibly conflicting language.

Sometimes you just gotta referee.

JMO.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Snaqs: if that is the intent of the rule, then how do you explain the ruling in 10.2.1A (b) (posted above) according to which it's "too late" to penalize A1? If the intent of the rule were to "penalize the proper player," presumably we should assess a foul on A1.

That's not just possibly conflicting, it's actually conflicting. :p

I think I can answer my own question. Like you guys, I've been thinking that the issue of whether to assess a team T or a player T turns on whether we can identify the guilty party.

But now I think that's wrong. 10-2 concerns substitutes, and we can assess an individual T on illegal subs when they are still subs.

A "sub" who runs onto the court during a live ball instantly becomes a player according to 4-34-3. So the reason it's "too late" to hit A1 with an illegal sub T in 10.2.1A (b) is that A1 is no longer a sub once the ball is live.

That's why the live/dead ball issue is relevant: it determines whether or not you're dealing with a substitute or a player. If it's a sub, we use 10-2. If it's a player, you have to go with 10-1-6, not because you don't know who's an illegal sub, but because there are no subs, and you have 6 players.

Sound right?

I think you were right before.

What if A1 saves the ball from going OOB and lands on his bench? At that point, A6 runs in and replaces him. Ball is live the whole time.

10.2.1.A does not deal with a substitute who enters the game while the ball is live. It clearly addresses two variations on a sub entering during a dead ball.

For a sub who enters during a live ball, you need to look at 10.2.2.

10.2.2 SITUATION: During a live ball and with the clock running, substitute A6 enters the court. RULING: A technical foul is charged if recognized by an official before the ball becomes live following the first dead ball.

The fact that it is case 10.2.2 tells us it is a Substitute Technical for a sub entering the court without being beckoned. If it were meant to be a Team Technical for B participating with six players, it would be case 10.1.6.Something-or-other.

Also, please don't let the live ball thing throw you. There is a very significant difference, significant rules-wise and significant in "real life" between a ball that is live and a ball that becomes live. Both 10.2.1.A and 3-3-3, which contributes to 10.2.1.A, talk about the ball becoming live. That is a change of status, from dead to live. There is no change of status from live to "still live". Thus any discussion of the illegal sub becoming a player once the ball becomes live requires that the ball first become dead. Which is the basis behind 10.2.2's ruling.

I agree with this & what J.R.said earlier.

Had something very similar happen last week in a BJV game. A1 on the line shooting first half of a 1+1. Just as he released his attempt, B6 runs from his bench past the table & onto the court without being beckoned. The FT was not successful and we blew the ball dead. We charged B6 with the T, A2 made the resulting two FT attempts, then we gave ball to A for inbound at the division line.

I had a situation similar to this one. We kicked it around.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...hats-call.html

Blarge?

ROFLMAO!

MTD, Sr.

A blarge is not similar to anything.

It is actually a mythical thing which doesn't exist, except in Dexter land, maybe.