Billy, maybe try to look at this way - let's say there's 3 subs for each team waiting at the table, and there's a violation that stops play. You wave on the subs, and they come on the floor. Well, look at that! Holy crap! There's a dead ball, and there's, what, 15 or 16 people on the floor! T's for everyone! Get all the cheaters outta here!

Ok, maybe that's a little over the top. But there are many instances where there are more than 5 for each team on the floor during a dead ball, and none of them need to be penalized. If you're good at analyzing, tell me this - when you beckon a sub on the court, they become a player. If the player being subbed for doesn't know they need to come out, and we hold up play waiting for someone to go out, don't we have, officially, 6 "players" on the court? T, right? Of course not, the T is when they are "participating" (live ball).

We already have other instances in the rules where things must be penalized or fixed when they happen, and if not, then it's too late. This happens to be another one of those instances. A correctable error cannot be corrected past the allowable time in the rules, no matter how much we know, after the fact, that it should. A T cannot be issued after the fact, no matter how much we know there are 6 players on the floor after we blow the whistle to stop play; we need to know it before that (while it's happening).

So you're saying that anyone with poor mechanics is likely to have poor ethics as well?

Appreciate Your Patience ...
 

It's not over the top. Sometimes one needs to look at extremes to really understand something. I know that some of the situations that I posted were extreme.

Nice reply. Thanks.

Here's what I've got from this thread (same as Jurassic Referee posted a week ago):

If more than five team members are participating, then the team can be charged with a technical foul during all live ball situations, as well as during all dead ball, clock running, situations.

If more than five team members are "participating" during a clock stopped, dead ball, situation then then the team cannot be charged with a technical foul.

I wish that the NFHS was more definitive about what "participating" means, as well as what "while being violated" means.

I'm still having problems accepting these situations:

Head coach of Team B requests, and is granted, a timeout. The sole purpose of this timeout is to call attention to the officials that Team A has six team members participating. Officials, who have been unaware that six team members have been participating up until that point, count six team members on the court. Dead ball. Clock stopped. Too late to penalize.

Team A has six team members participating, which goes unobserved by the officials. Official calls a travel violation on Team A. There are no substitutions after the whistle. Before administering the throw in, official observes that Team A has six team members participating. Dead ball. Clock stopped. Too late to penalize.

Team A has six players on the court. Officials are unaware of this infraction. Team A has been awarded two free throws. First free throw is successful. No substitutions are made. Before bouncing the ball to the free thrower for his second free throw, the officials realize that Team A has six players on the court. Dead ball. Clock stopped. Too late to penalize.

In all three situations, I know that I'm going to have a difficult time explaining to the head coach of Team B that it's too late to penalize, especially the first situation.

Bottom line. Officials must take their time, and do everything that they can possibly do, using good mechanics, to prevent this from happening.

Exactly. Now, to get on my soapbox a little, I still don't like the fact that many will say it's our fault if we don't count and discover it. We do what we can to try and prevent it, but it's just as much, if not more, the coach's fault. They are the ones directly involved with their team, who subs in at what time, who they're replacing, etc. If there are 6 players participating, and the coach doesn't catch it or is aware of it, then they deserve the T. More than likely, they are aware of it and are simply trying to get away with something if we don't catch it, so even more of a reason to assess the T in my mind.

Maybe another way to look at the plays you're having problems with is to use JR's reasoning - if it's a point in the game where a sub can enter, can you be 100% absolutely positively sure that a sub didn't come in when you weren't looking? I think that's why the rules makers want it to be discovered while violating, iow, while the game is going on. That's where the real advantage happens, not when players are standing around, or moving to the next throw-in spot, etc.

Intent And Purpose ...
 

Good point. Advantage. Disadvantage. What a novel idea?

Put this one under rule change I would like to see.


Penalized with definite knowledge the infraction occurred.

I've been thinking about this one some more. (I think about things. It's what I do)

dis·cov·er (d-skvr) tr.v. dis·cov·ered, dis·cov·er·ing, dis·cov·ers

1. To notice or learn,

What defines discovery in this case? The officials learned about six on the floor from the coach, then went on to verify the information after a spontaneous (poorly timed) whistle. Ideally, one should make his own count first, but, in this case, I don't think this mistake kills the possibility of the T. JMO

I anticipate hearty disagreement on this opinion.

Wrong. Instead, you will get extreme apathy, as in no one gives a sh!t except you and Billy.

Just call the damn game. It's what we should do.

Walk And Chew Gum ???
 

In the opinion of many coaches, it's very difficult to do both at the same time.

Ignorance Is Bliss ...
 

I was pretty satisfied after this post.

I've got some closure. Feels real good.

Damn you just another ref. Now you've got me thinking again.

Thanks for your support.

I support you just as fully as you support your fellow LA associations. :)

I support the idea of fulfilling an agreement to do a job.

Not hearty disagreement, just a quick dismissal. Nothing the coach says ever "teaches" me anything. Otherwise, I've learned the following:

1. A player cannot be given free throws for a shooting foul when fouled "on the floor."
2. The butt cheek is the pivot when an airborne player catches the ball and lands on his jar.
3. The travel rules apply to thower on a throw-in.
4. B1 fouled the shooter on that layup.
5. A1 was pushing off on that same layup.

I "learn" nothing from coaches. Period.

What about the following: A1 misses the 1st of a 1-and-1, B1 rebounds, looks for the outlet pass, and travels. You kinda hear A's coach saying something as your partner puts the ball in play, and A completes the throw-in. While A2 is dribbling the ball, you finally hear what A's coach is saying, "We should've had 2 shots on that last foul!". You blow the whistle, check with the table, and find out that, sure enough, A1 should've had a second FT.

Let's review - you've discovered, or learned, from the coach some information that something wrong happened. You sounded your (poorly-timed) whistle, and discovered that it was, in fact, true. Ideally, the officials should've known that A1 should've had 2 FT's, not just a 1-and-1. So, does your mistake that you didn't hear the coach right away mean you can go back and correct the error?

Of course not, it's beyond the correctable error limits. Too bad. As much as we would like to think it's only "fair" that we go back and correct the error, we can't. Same here - we can only penalize while participating, not (close enough) right after the fact. It might've been an official's error that allowed their partner to put the ball in play before finding out the coach was asking about the correctable error and missing FT, but, it's still too late. The same as 6 participating - the official might've made the error to blow the whistle first instead of counting while the ball was live, but again, too bad, it's too late.