Substitute Technical

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Several times a season I'll see a coach change his mind before the player leaves the court. So at what point does the player become bench personnel?

You and the scorer try and determine who was being replaced. If the player being replaced got the "T", then he's bench personnel and the head coach gets an indirect "T". If it wasn't the player being replaced who got the "T", then just give that player the "T" with no indirect "T" to the head coach. And if you can't determine without doubt the identity of the player being replaced, then assess the maximum penalty...which includes an indirect "T" given to the head coach.

Use the direction of case book play 3.3.1SitF iow. Close enough for me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The player became bench personnel when his substitute entered the court, even if nobody knew which player momentarily. I would think, in the OP, signal the T, then, when that player goes to the bench, we would know that it is also an indirect on the coach.

I'm not sure I agree (emphasis on "not sure"). If the player becomes bench personnel when his sub enters the court, then the coach can't change his mind at the last second about who's coming out.
Or, the coach can't correct Johnny's mistake when he tells Jimmy to come out instead of Timmy. Because then Jimmy would have to sit a tic.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not sure I agree (emphasis on "not sure"). If the player becomes bench personnel when his sub enters the court, then the coach can't change his mind at the last second about who's coming out.

Sometimes the coach didn't even say until the player is on the court.

Coach: "Get in there!"

player reports, is beckoned, enters

Player: "For who, coach?"

Coach: "_____, get out!"

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Several times a season I'll see a coach change his mind before the player leaves the court. So at what point does the player become bench personnel?

There will always be exceptions, but in the vast majority of substitutions it's crystal clear. So leave it to the official's judgment - if there's reasonable doubt T the player only - if not, HC gets the indirect as well.

I see what you describe happen occasionally, but not all that often - it just isn't a major issue. If it's occurring repeatedly during a game, then that coach needs to do a better job of communicating with their players. Maybe we need to go back to the days when the incoming sub had to report who they were replacing to the table, or add repeated occurances to the criteria for a DOG warning. There's no reason everyone else should have to stand around waiting because of indecision or inadequate communication on the part of the HC. The onus needs to be put back on the coaches where it belongs.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You and the scorer try and determine who was being replaced. If the player being replaced got the "T", then he's bench personnel and the head coach gets an indirect "T". If it wasn't the player being replaced who got the "T", then just give that player the "T" with no indirect "T" to the head coach. And if you can't determine without doubt the identity of the player being replaced, then assess the maximum penalty...which includes an indirect "T" given to the head coach.

Use the direction of case book play 3.3.1SitF iow. Close enough for me.

Works for me.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You and the scorer try and determine who was being replaced. If the player being replaced got the "T", then he's bench personnel and the head coach gets an indirect "T". If it wasn't the player being replaced who got the "T", then just give that player the "T" with no indirect "T" to the head coach. And if you can't determine without doubt the identity of the player being replaced, then assess the maximum penalty...which includes an indirect "T" given to the head coach.

Use the direction of case book play 3.3.1SitF iow. Close enough for me.

Works for me too!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Works for me.

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Works for me too!

Great. Now let's all sing, "Kumbaya".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great. Now let's all sing, "Kumbaya".

Shut up.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless the player is actually at the bench (and maybe this one was), how do you KNOW that a player walking in the general direction of the bench is the player that is leaving the game.

'4-34-3
A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

There's absolutely NOTHING in the rule regarding him going to the bench or being on the bench.

What if the coach, after the player is whistled for the T, indicates that he wanted a different player subbed out and was only calling that player over to tell him something? Hmmm.

If the coach is smart enough to know the rule (obviously this one wasn't) then he might be able to pull that off.

Seems unreliable to assume a specific player is bench personnel until they are actually on the bench or have been disqualified and are thus bench personnel by rule.

You don't have to assume anything. Once that replaced player leaves the floor and we now KNOW he was the replaced player, part of the penalty is that it's an indirect and the coach has to sit. Therefore, we don't have to make a determination on whether he's a player going over to talk to the coach or if he's a replaced player until we get to the penalty enforcement.

PENALTY: Shoot 2 FTs, inform the coach he has to sit and award the ball for a throw-in at the division line.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Cam makes a good point. I assume it was obvious in the OP that the mouthy one was the one for whom the sub came in, but there could be some question; in which case I'd simply go with a player T.

The sub comes in, the player is walking to the bench, is hit with a T, continues to the bench and sits down. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

'4-34-3
A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

There's absolutely NOTHING in the rule regarding him going to the bench or being on the bench.



If the coach is smart enough to know the rule (obviously this one wasn't) then he might be able to pull that off.



You don't have to assume anything. Once that replaced player leaves the floor and we now KNOW he was the replaced player, part of the penalty is that it's an indirect and the coach has to sit. Therefore, we don't have to make a determination on whether he's a player going over to talk to the coach or if he's a replaced player until we get to the penalty enforcement.

PENALTY: Shoot 2 FTs, inform the coach he has to sit and award the ball for a throw-in at the division line.




The sub comes in, the player is walking to the bench, is hit with a T, continues to the bench and sits down. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

My point, which seems to have gotten twisted was that you can't, with 100% certainty, KNOW who the replaced player is until they get to the bench. Yes, they are actually bench personnel once the sub is beckoned, but you can't know for sure until they get to the bench. If you report the T and indicate that it is an indirect T with the player still on the court, you've possible charged an erroneous indirect.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you report the T and indicate that it is an indirect T with the player still on the court, you've possible charged an erroneous indirect.

Ahh...but since it isn't a correctable error situation, you can't recind it, right?

(Oops, wrong thread.)

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My point, which seems to have gotten twisted was that you can't, with 100% certainty, KNOW who the replaced player is until they get to the bench. Yes, they are actually bench personnel once the sub is beckoned, but you can't know for sure until they get to the bench. If you report the T and indicate that it is an indirect T with the player still on the court, you've possible charged an erroneous indirect.

There was nothing the OP that said the official called the T, reported it, and informed the coach all before the replaced player reached the bench.

You asked Tim Taylor, "...how do you KNOW that a player walking in the general direction of the bench is the player that is leaving the game."

The OP indicated to us that the T was called on the replaced player. There was nothing in the OP that indicated that the player the T was called in did not go to the bench.

I think that's how Tim Taylor knew the player the T was called on was the replaced player.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The sub comes in, the player is walking to the bench, is hit with a T, continues to the bench and sits down. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Agreed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There was nothing the OP that said the official called the T, reported it, and informed the coach all before the replaced player reached the bench.

You asked Tim Taylor, "...how do you KNOW that a player walking in the general direction of the bench is the player that is leaving the game."

The OP indicated to us that the T was called on the replaced player. There was nothing in the OP that indicated that the player the T was called in did not go to the bench.

I think that's how Tim Taylor knew the player the T was called on was the replaced player.

That was my entire point...you have to wait to see. The OP said the player was leaving towards the bench but wasn't there yet.

[BktBallRef]

I'm pretty sure he wrote that to explain that the T was definitely received after he had been replaced. Had he not been replaced, he would never have asked the question.