Freshman boys game this weekend - A1 shoots, is fouled, shot goes in. As teams line up for the FT, A's coach puts in some subs. Problem is, more go on the court than come off. To make matters worse, none of the refs (3 man crew), neither of the coaches, and apparently, none of the players notice. Who's that leave? The all-knowing fans!

Ref bounces the ball to A1 at the line. Stands erupt with calls of six players on the court. Team A's coach quickly calls a time-out. Howls continue. Refs confer.

You make the call!

Did the officials notice?
 

Well you cannot call a T if the officials did not notice 6 players on the court.


Peace

I would blow the whistle immediately and direct the coach to remove a player before any further activity occurs. I agree that you cannot call a "T" since it was an inadvertant error by the coach. Also, once the ball becomes live, all players become legal participants.

Meaning that you can't issue a technical foul for having six players during a live ball? :confused:

Chuck

I would blow the whistle, take the ball from the shooter, and ask the coach to remove a player. If the other coach barks, I would tell him it's my fault because I gave the ball to the shooter before ensuring the correct number of players are on the floor. If he keeps going I would tell him that I can't call a technical on myself, but I can call one on him.

Who invited the subs in? T and C should be paying attention. Count the number of players coming in then count players as the go off. If you are unsure of how many are on the floor, keep the hand up. Eye contact. I remember somewhere, I think it was a pregame in Levenson's site that said. "It is more import to know who leaves the game than who comes in."

In this senerio where all are fast asleep except that one guy on the sixth row of the bleachers. No T but blow whistle before the shot and get a player off the court. If the shot is taken before the situation is caught, there is no choice but to call a T.

IMO, just because it might be the coach's or official's mistake/oversight, does not mean that this situation should be overlooked. The rule book does not give us the leeway (sp?) to determine which rules we enforce and which ones we do not. I know, I know, sometimes we have to use our "judgement" in making certain calls (see Rut's response). But, as an ex-coach, let me suggest that we (as officials) are better off if we make the calls we see or are aware of and forget the temptation to avoid certain calls due to an official's error. Are we there to save our butts or make the correct call???

Let me give you an example that happened in a district tournament game in which I was coaching many years ago. Game is tied with 30 seconds remaining, team A's basketball. Team A takes a timeout to substitute. Both teams use the timeout to discuss strategy. After the timeout, Team A inbounds and makes several passes. At that time, the Team B coach (me) notices that Team A did not remove a player and there are 6 Team A players on the floor. The officials, now aware that there are 6 Team A players on the floor, have no choice other than to "T" Team A (and remove the egg from their face for allowing such an incident to happen in the first place). We (Team B) make the free throws, get possession and hold on to win. Team B's coach didn't blame the officials for their call. In fact, if anything, he admitted to a lack of communication which led to the T. The lack of a call in this situation would simply have compounded the ugliness of the situation, in my opinion.

I am embarrassed to say ...
 

This situation (or close to it) happened to me this weekend. Was doing two man in a 6th grade boys tournament and I was the trail about to administer a throwin in back court. Team A ran players to the table and so we subbed them in. Confusion sets in with boys going toward the bench, then back toward the court a couple of times. I make a quick count and have six As on the court. I whistle and tell the coach to get one off. More confusion. I see a kid go off and turn back to get ready for the throw in. I check my partner - he points back, we are ready to go - I administer the throw-in. We are halfway up the court and my partner blows the whistle - 6 As on the court. How I don't know. Partner called a team T on A. I still don't know how that happened. I was embarrassed - and I should have counted one last time, but the delay was already very long and I was ready for the game to continue. There is a lot to be said for taking your time

By rule, if the officials noticed that there were 6 players on the court "before" the timeout was granted, a tec must be called. If the officials did not notice that 6 players were on the court until "after" the timeout has granted-then a tec is not called.

Based on the replies so far, it appears our poor officials may have kicked the call.

This is what ensued: The officials called a 'T' (because the shooter already had the ball?). B1 shot the technical (2 FT's), making both. Team A's lane was then cleared, and A1 shot his free-throw (from the foul), which he missed. The officials then directed both teams to half-court where they prepared to admininster a throw-in for team B.

But, wait there's more! Team A's varsity coach was keeping the home book. After A1 missed the FT, he told the refs they had administered the FTs in the wrong order, that it was a correctable error, that the technicals scored by B should be removed from the book, and both teams be required to shoot again, in reverse order. One of the officials held his arm out to the varsity coach (palm facing), said, "That's enough, coach", and proceeded with the throw-in.

I wasn't sure what the procedure was supposed to be, but felt bad for the refs (that's a rarity!). I heard later that an assignor had been evaluating them. Argghhh.

Ok, after typing out my answer, I went back and realized that it was a HS game. But I'm too lazy to take out all the college stuff. Proceed at your own risk.


Wow. Ok, is this a HS game or a college game? Either way, the officials screwed up. But they screwed up worse if it was a college game.

HS: shoot them in the order they occur. 1 FT for the personal (lane cleared), then 2 for the T (lane cleared), ball to B due to the T. If this was a HS game, then it's kind of "all's well that ends well" b/c they shot all the FTs they were supposed to and they gave the ball to the correct team after the FTs. They shot them out of order, but at least they continued correctly after the FTs.

College: shoot the T first and then go to the POI (and then tear up the rest of your schedule!). They administered the FTs in the correct order, but should have allowed the lane to be filled during A's FT and played off the miss.

This is a very tough point. In fact, this was a question on the ECAC refresher test this year, and I still don't know the correct answer. What do you do if you administer the FTs in the wrong order? I honestly don't think it's correctable; it doesn't fit under any of the items in 2-10. I think if this was a HS game, that the officials did the correct thing by continuing from where they were. If it were a college game, I think you have to let all the FTs stand and go to the arrow. Ouch.

Chuck

The officials had to call the T because they discovered it during a live ball.They have no other option under R10-1-6 and Penalty(Art6).The coach keeping score was full of crap when he wanted a correctable error called.The FT's were shot in the wrong order,but all the shots were merited.There's nothing there to correct,by rule.

You're right,though--bad time to go through all this with an evaluator there.

This is why it is part of my game management process to count the players after every sub before the ball is put in to play. As always a little preventative officiating can go a long way.....

Shooting free throws out of order is not a correctable error. There is a HFHS case play somewhere on this, but I'm I"m not going to take the time to find it.....but I am sure it is not a correctable error to shoot free throws "out of order".

Ding, Ding, Ding....correct answer!

Needless to say, preventative officiating and at least one official being awake would have prevented this whole mess. In this case, even though the ball has become live, there has been no "action" to speak of. Refneck's answer is exactly the way I would proceed.

In the situation posted by Pirate, the ball was put in play with six players on the court for Team A. This is a significant advantage and the T must be called.

In the original situation, I cannot justify a T because the officials were asleep in a situation where there has been no playing action.

Ding,Ding,Ding.....got anything in the rule book that will back this up?
You can get get youself in deep doo-doo sometimes,when you make decisions that are contrary to the written rules.

Btw,what exactly is the difference in Refneck's case and Pirate's case?In both cases,the ball was put into play(live ball)with Team A having 6 players on the court.Why would you handle them differently?

You always have to think of BOTH teams.Aren't you guys screwing Team B by ignoring the rules?They're not the ones who put 6 players on the court.

Jon Levinson Website: http://apollo.carroll.com/p/levinson/Officiating.html

Call the timeout, if your brain works quick enough !
 

If the coach has recognized the problem before the officials and has called for a timeout....

A1 is on the line with the ball and Team A coach calls time....

I say award the timeout. No T. Team A has been penalized; they lost a timeout. You will likely need to plead your case to the Team B coach.

Now the real question becomes whether I would have been quick enough to recognize the request for timeout before I recognized that my team of officials have screwed up. You've gotta call whatever you see first... T or timeout.

Re: Call the timeout, if your brain works quick enough !
 

Or whatever you want to see first!:D

If you do it this way and call the TO first,then your a$$ is covered by the rulebook when you don't call a T on this play.

Exactly !

If we survive, someday we will all be seasoned veterans with a calm, wisened demeanor.... like JR

As Jurassic said it:

Couldn't agree with you more JR!

Case Book play 8.7 B confirms that administering merited free throws in the wrong order is not a correctable error and all shots stand.

Good pick,Nevada!

Same game, different situation. The game actually featured one of those odd backcourt situations discussed in another thread - where B1 deflects the ball off A1's leg in the frontcourt, and A2 was the first to touch the ball in the backcourt. Its the first time I had actually seen it...well, seen it and actually knew what it was!

Also, just an interesting observation - the game featured one of those common plays where A1 is racing upcourt on a fast break, and as A1 brings the ball up to shoot, B1 slaps down at the ball, knocking it out of bounds. The lead, who was right on the play, blew his whistle. The trail, who assumed the lead was going to call a foul put his fist in the air. When the lead indicated out of bounds, the trail quickly dropped his arm. It was one of those plays that, from behind, looks like a foul, and all the all-knowing fans whine about when its not. Not me, though! I'm an ignoramous!

This is an easy call. Live ball, 6-players= "T". HS, and certainly college, i call a T. Supervisors can forgive a screwup by the officials, but not a rules screwup. When you ignore the rules, you are inviting trouble.

I dont have my rule book handy but I believe it mentions something like "actively participating". Could just say that the sixth player was not meeting this requirement, remove him/her from the court and play on.

Paulis, interesting... I'll have to think about it. :)

Here are the words from the rule book:

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties
SECTION 1 TEAM TECHNICAL
A team shall not:
ART. 1 . . . .
ART. 2 . . .
ART. 3 . . .
ART. 4 . . . .
ART. 5 . . . .
ART. 6 . . . Have more than five team members participating simultaneously.

There ia a case book play that does use "actively participating".By that,they just mean that there are 6 players in-bounds on the court.Don't read anything into that language that would let a team get away with their screw-up.You have to call the T.

Way to go Jurassic Referee, You just had to trash our way out of this situation.

I'm not a big fan of calling T's unless they are absolutely necessary,Bart.I've never been stuck with the label of being "over officious",either.I just think that there are some situations,and this is one of them,where you HAVE to call the T(like it or not).If you don't,you can dig yourself into a deep hole with a league,your supervisor,etc.You've just got absolutely no defense if somebody challenges you for not calling a T on this play.I've seen some awfully good officials lose games because they tried to be "Mr. Nice Guy".

1st of 2 FTs?
 

How about this escape?

What happens if you notice the 6 players after you give the ball to the shooter for the first of 2 free throws. You could swallow your whistle, let the player shoot, recover the ball, and THEN discover the 6th player. At that point the ball is dead so there is no T. (Besides, standing and watching someone shoot a free throw where there will be no rebound is not very active in the participation department.)

If there is only 1 shot, or it is the second shot, then you must give the T.

I know, I am on the same page as you on this issue.

If you use that reasoning, maybe I can put a couple extra players on when I have some lazy players on defense ;) I always seem to have players that are not actively participating to my satisfaction.

2-3-2 zone defense? Should get the job done!

Nope,you counter it with 3-2-3 offense!

Easy. Ref's mistake. A ref quickly hurries over to coach A (before his players do) and asks him to remove a player now, send all players back to the free throw line, and not be charged with a timeout.

Or, if any of these conditions are not met, the timeout must be granted.

Mike

I'm going to assume that the game was a close one... and as such, I think it is terrible of the officials to allow this to happen with 30 seconds left.

Mike

Got anything in the rulebook that will back your plan up,Mike?

What is the definition of participating? Why does the ball have to be live? Definition of a player: (4-34-1) one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time. With this in mind are these "players" not "participating" even when standing idle during a free throw. I think in this case you certainly have leeway when the subs come in to give them a break: "Six players, coach.
Somebody's gotta go out." or whatever. BUT, the ultimate responsibility here lies with the coach. Once any kind of action has resumed after the substitution is thought to be complete, whether it was a single free throw or whatever, if
you count 6 of one color, you almost have to call a T.

Nada.

Of course, I check on every play, and some day one will get by me. However, in the sitch that was described, there has been no real disadvantage. Ok, maybe the shooter was iced a bit, but there was no up-and-down the court action.

What if one referee's hand was up and the other bounced the ball to the shooter prematurely. This is a ref's mistake. As is the ref bringing in the subs allowing 11 on the court.

If I screw up, I try not to penalize the kids playing the game.




[Edited by JugglingReferee on Dec 5th, 2002 at 06:37 AM]

The team that had 6 players on the court is the party that screwed up.

No disadvantage?One team has 6 players on the court during a live ball-you ignore it-and you haven't disadvantaged the OTHER team(not to mention ignoring a clearly written rule)? How can you possibly explain your way out of this one,if the coach puts in a complaint to the league about it? We don't get to pick and choose the rules we administer due to like or dislike.

There's always 2 teams on the court,and you have to be fair to both of them.

Here's the legalistic way of viewing it:
 

Under 4-34-1 ...A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.
and 4-34-3 says ...A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court. If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live. A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player ....

So to sort this situation out:
1. We have 5 players on the court for each team.
2. We have a number of substitutes properly check-in at the table and are beckoned onto the court by an official. This is the definition of legal entry, thus the entry of all substitutes is legal and they are now players.
3. We had 5 players from each team on the court prior to the substitution process, but as soon as the subs legally entered, each player who is supposed to be replaced has now become bench personnel. (This was easier to see under last year's rules when the substitute had to give the number of the player he was replacing as well as his own to the scorer. But alas since no one followed that, they have dropped this requirement.)
For example, if Red had three subs enter and White 2, Red now has 2 players on the court from before plus 3 players who were substitutes and 3 team members who should now be leaving. Similiarly, White has 3 players carryover plus 2 players who were subs, and 2 team members who are now bench personnel and are leaving.
4. Notice that both teams still have only 5 players on the court during this dead ball. That is why there is no team technical foul during the dead ball.
5. Now all former players, who are now bench personnel, have made it to their respective benches except one. He is confused or didn't get the message from his teammate or coach that he is supposed to come out. Notice this is the team's fault! Not the official's. The officials have done everything properly so far.
6. At this time the officials fail to notice that team member A6 has still not left the court and allow the ball to become live. While it would be best if the officials did notice this and instructed him to leave before putting the ball in play, it is not their duty to do so according to a strict reading of the officials manual or the rules book. 116. in the Officials Manual concerns substitutions and says, "Officials shall count the players prior to putting the ball in play." This is definitely splitting hairs and being legalistic, but at this time there are only 5 players on the court for each team. The problem is there is also one team member, who is bench personnel, out there who shouldn't be. While I admit that the officials are probably asleep, and likely no count of players was made, according to the definitions given in rule 4 even if a count of "players" was made before the ball became live it would be five for each team. So this is by rule the team's fault and not the officials. If everyone else made it off the court properly, clearly the officials also gave the one that remained plently of time to exit. We shouldn't have to wait for him to figure out where he is supposed to be.
7. Finally, we have six PLAYERS in the game for one team when the ball becomes live since the team member who failed to exit once again becomes a player. This is so since his entry, or rather is lack of exit, is not legal and he therefore, only becomes a player when the ball becomes live. Team technical foul at this time.


To summarize, the T is not for putting too many in, it is for failing to remove the correct amount. The team member who failed to leave causes the T when the ball becomes live as he becomes a player whose entry is not legal. It is his fault, not the officials. I for one will not lose any sleep if I have to call a T for this as I firmly believe the team's lack of communication within itself caused this foul.

Clearly, NevadaRef is out to win this year's Mark T DeNucci, Sr "Longest Post of the Year" award. I won it last year and I won't give it up without a fight, tho. I'll just bide my time until a subject comes along that catches my eye and then BAM! NevadaRef will never know what hit him!

For an interesting history of the MTD, Sr award as well as the annual Slappy Dan awards, see the following:

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=5468

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=5254

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/acclaim.gifhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/roflmao.gif

Great post above,Nevada Ref
 

1)You win a "Slappy". Congratulations!
2)Just as a kinda rebuttal,and I don't mean to be mean or anything,but R10-1-6 says "have more than five team members participating simultaneously". That would be eight(8) words,as I count 'em.
3)http://www.gifs.net/animate/icecave.gif
:D

Re: 1st of 2 FTs?
 

And in fact, in this situation, since no time comes off the clock, does a "Rudy" type player actually get listed as being a participant in the game?


Mike

Re: 1st of 2 FTs?
 

I love this out!

It happened on the front end of 2 FTs. Sure it's a live ball, and I hope that I'm quick enough to think to myself to "notice" to infraction during the dead ball period following the first shot. Seeing how nothing happens to the ball after the first shot, other than it being dead, I guess the disadvantage to B is that A has one more player on the court that could commit a free throw violation, and hence ruin their first shot.

But to call a T. No way. I don't care if I'm being evaluated. I'm certain that there will be other things in my game, more legitimate, that an evaluator will comment on.

Mike

It happened on the front end of 2 FTs. Sure it's a live ball, and I hope that I'm quick enough to think to myself to "notice" to infraction during the dead ball period following the first shot. Seeing how nothing happens to the ball after the first shot, other than it being dead, I guess the disadvantage to B is that A has one more player on the court that could commit a free throw violation, and hence ruin their first shot.

But to call a T. No way. I don't care if I'm being evaluated. I'm certain that there will be other things in my game, more legitimate, that an evaluator will comment on.

Mike [/B][/QUOTE]Mike,do you really think that NOT giving B two extra FT"s,plus a possession,isn't really putting them at a disadvantage? If B loses the game by a point,are you telling me that your evaluator isn't gonna mention that little fact to you?Do you really think that the B coach isn't gonna be writing a 10 page diatribe on this,if he loses?Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny?:D

I don't think that anyone on this board(except for maybe a few closet sociopaths)really want to call a T in this case.I'm guessing that the great majority(and I'm one of them)really hate the idea of having to call one.The problem is the rulebook doesn't give us the option of NOT calling one,unless you're quick enough to play with the live ball/dead ball aspect.Even then,you're still screwing B.JMO.

Mike,do you really think that NOT giving B two extra FT"s,plus a possession,isn't really putting them at a disadvantage? If B loses the game by a point,are you telling me that your evaluator isn't gonna mention that little fact to you?Do you really think that the B coach isn't gonna be writing a 10 page diatribe on this,if he loses?Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny?:D

I don't think that anyone on this board(except for maybe a few closet sociopaths)really want to call a T in this case.I'm guessing that the great majority(and I'm one of them)really hate the idea of having to call one.The problem is the rulebook doesn't give us the option of NOT calling one,unless you're quick enough to play with the live ball/dead ball aspect.Even then,you're still screwing B.JMO. [/B][/QUOTE]

Closet sociopath...not me...no sireee...

http://www.gifs.net/animate/asspump.gif

Closet sociopath...not me...no sireee...

http://www.gifs.net/animate/asspump.gif [/B][/QUOTE]You're never one to point a finger,eh?:D

Btw,Slider's back. You going to the party?

Sure...you bringin' the rope?

Re: Re: 1st of 2 FTs?
 

Nope-unless he stays in the game as one of the legal 5 participants.It's a team T-Rudy can't get directly charged with one,either.

Well, as usual, you are right, JR!
So much for my legal career.
I guess the only bright side from my work is a possible definition of "participating" for 10-1-6.
I would say that a team member is participating when he/she is a player. Then my post makes some sense.
Unfortunately, the NFHS just doesn't give a definition and having one in my own little basketball world isn't good enough.

I guess the only bright side from my work is a possible definition of "participating" for 10-1-6.
[/B][/QUOTE]Oh no,the real bright side is that you are now eligible to win one of this year's coveted "Slappy" awards.That would make you immortal forever!

Immortal forever?? I can't believe that I wrote that,but I'm leaving 'er in! Must have got that from the famous "Department of Redundancy Department". :D