Is there such an animal as a False Multiple Technical?
 

Scenerio

A has 6 players on the floor, as the official is getting ready to call the T, A tries to sub a player for a player. (Not to remove the 6th player, but to sub without checking in or being beckoned onto the court by the official)(By the way my official would not and did not beckon the player onto the court, already knowing of the T for too many players on the floor). By DEFINITION would this be called a false multiple Technical foul. The out come is the same, as far as the penalty. By definiton, can this be defined as a False Multiple Technical?

Thank You

CK

I'm a little confused. If there were 6 players on the floor, but an unwarranted sub were entering the game, was there a dead ball (otherwise, why was sub entering?)
If the ball was dead, no "T" for the 6th man, and tell the sub to go back to the table. If the ball was live, I may ignore the sub and explain as a late whistle for the 6 players on the floor. In any event, I'd like to see the replay.

I'm confused, was the ball live or dead when he was about to call the T?
If it was live, blow the whistle for the 6 players, ignore the rest as the ball is dead. IOW, I agree with refiator on this one.
If it was dead, you've only got a T for the sub entering w/o being beckoned.

Either way, 1 T.

Rephrasing the question so that it makes sense.
 

The question should be:

Can all of the fouls in a false multiple foul be technical fouls? The answer is yes.


Example: A1 tells the official where to stick his whistle. The officials informs A1's coach, as to why A1 received a Flagrant TF, and A1's coach also tells the official what he can do with his whistle, thereby receiving a Flagrant TF himself.

MTD, Sr.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???
 

If a team has more than five team members participating simultaneously, then a team technical foul is charged. This infraction is penalized if it is discovered by the officials while being violated, in other words, while more than five team members are currently participating as players in the game.

Does it matter if the ball is dead, or live? If there are six players, does it matter whether whether, or not, the ball is dead, live, clock running, clock not running, or if there is, or isn't, a timeout (not an intermission)?

You answered your own question in your first paragraph. Didn't you understand yourself?

100% Sure ...
 

Just confirming. I was confused by an earlier post:

Why was that confusing? <strike>The NFHS has made it clear that</strike> players are not "participating" for purposes of this rule when the ball is dead and the clock isn't running.

Can We Clear This Up ???
 

Citation please?

NFHS 10-1-6: A team shall not: Have more than five team members participating simultaneously

10.1.6 SITUATION: With Team A leading 51 to 50, a held ball is called. A6
properly reports and enters the game. Time is then called by Team A. The clock
shows two seconds remaining in the game. After play is resumed by a throw-in,
the officials: (a) recognize that A has six players competing, but cannot get the
clock stopped; or (b) do not notice Team A has six players on the court. Following
the throw-in, time expires. Team B now reports to the officials that Team A had
six players on the court. RULING: In (a), since one of the officials had knowledge
that Team A had six players participating simultaneously and this was detected
prior to time expiring, a technical foul is assessed against Team A. In (b), since it
was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after time
had expired, it is too late to assess any penalty.

Question: Head coach of Team A requests, and is granted, a timeout, at which point he complains to the officials that Team B 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 walking off the court into their timeout huddle (Please note that in 10.1.6 SITUATION (b) the officials were not aware of the additional player until after time expires, which, to me, means the same as an intermission, when all team members are bench personnel).

Ruling on my timeout situation?

Well, how about the mechanic that says we count the players before putting the ball in play, and if there are 6 (or more), we fix the problem rather than call the T? Granted, this is more about practice than rule, but the practice is pretty much universal; if the NFHS wanted it done differently, they would issue an edict (sort of like the end of game/shirt off scenario).

I was going to use case 10.1.6, but in that one the game is over rather than just stopped.

You just answered your own question AGAIN. Under 10.1.6(b), there is no technical foul issued. Under rule 10-1-6PENALTY(Art 6), you can't issue "T" as it wasn't discovered while being violated.

Casebook play 10.1.6Sit(a) illustrates the same point. In that situation, you can issue a "T" because it was discovered while being violated i.e. the clock running. The officials just couldn't get the clock stopped in time. Hell, a better nit for you to pick might be why they don't put time back on the clock in 10.1.6Sit(a) IF they have definite knowledge of how much to put back on.

Lah me, Billy, you know all that. It's pretty damn straight-forward. Why look for reasons to confuse the newbies?

Just use R10-1-6PENALTY(Art6). It's straight-forward, no matter how confused Billy is with it.

ART. 6- "Penalized if discovered while being violated."

Devil's Advocate ???
 

In 10.1.6 SITUATION (b), the game has ended, and, like an intermission, all team members are considered bench personnel, and therefore, not players, and therefore not "participating". That's why a technical foul can't be charged.

In my hypothetical situation, in which a timeout has been requested, and granted, the sixth "player" may still be participating? Or, is he? He's not a player, because, by definition, there are only five players. He's not bench personnel, because he was just playing in the game. He's in some kind of basketball team member limbo? Thus my question. If the officials observe this sixth team member walking off the court into the timeout huddle, is it too late to charge a technical foul?

Yes, you've seen a player walking off the court. You have no idea when or how he got on. He could be coming back from getting a drink, or congratulating a teammate, or....

Or Just Pull One Player Off The Court ???
 

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 (still) has six team members participating. Ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. Too late to penalize with a technical foul?

Note to Snaqwells, and Jurassic Referee: I'm "hung up" on the word "participating". Please be patient with me for a few more posts, and then send me to my room without supper.

Yes, you don't know who came on last. You don't know when he came on. Best you can do is talk to the table and see if they saw him run on w/o being beckoned.

He's no more participating than the players when you normally count. You're overthinking this.

WTF does NFHS rule 10-1-6PENALTY(Art 6) say?

And why won't you believe it?

As I said, lah...freaking...me.....

And Yes, I Am Overthinking This ...
 

Don't have to know who came on last, it's a team technical, not a player technical.

Participating ???
 

If discovered (participating) while being violated. What defines whether, or not, a player is participating? Does it have to be during a live ball, clock running, situation? Can it be during a live ball, clock stopped situation, i.e., between two free throws?

My point was the team tech isn't an option, only the sub tech if you know who.

You didn't see them participating. You saw them standing on the court.

Billy, come on. It's the same as every other time we count the players. Count them, if there are too many, fix it. It's how it's handled everywhere, and if they wanted it different they would have told us a long time ago.

And the point of the case play is that you can't go back and call the T retroactively, even if you think you know he had to be participating when the ball was live. If you didn't see it, you can't call it.

Dead Ball, Clock Stopped ...
 

Snaqwells: Thanks for your patience. Not only am I still caught up on the definition of participating, but I'm also having trouble with your dead ball, clock running, post.

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 missed. 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. Are all six players participating at this point? Can a technical be charged at this point, or do we just send off the extra player?

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 missed. No substitutions are made. After bouncing the ball to the free thrower, and the ball at the free thrower's disposal for his second free throw, the officials realize that Team A has six players on the court. Live ball. Clock stopped. Are all six players participating at this point? Can a technical be charged at this point, or do we just send off the extra player?

send him off. Unless you're going to say he was participating. If you say that, you need to call the T when you count 6 prior to a throw-in.

Sigh.....

You've discovered the last secret of the universe, Billy. The NFHS did not make up an all-inclusive list of ALL situations when when players are participating. Bad NFHS rulesmakers! Bad, bad NFHS rulesmakers! Hey, how about you coming up with one? That'll give you something to do. Don't forget to post it here when you're done.

Untl then, sayonara.....

I thought my first post answered the original question: Is there such an animal as a false multiple technical foul? :D

MTD, Sr.

And??? ;)

How's That ???
 

Live ball?

Here let me do it for you....

For the puposes of administering NFHS rule 10-1-6, a player is participating:
1) during all live-ball, clock running situations.
2) during all live-ball, clock stopped situations.
3) during all dead-ball, clock running situations.

A player is not participating during dead-ball, clock stopped situations.

And so it is written, and so it shall be!

Now see if you can find any exceptions.

Can we get him to post it on the mythbusters forum?

The Rain In Spain Stays Mainly In The Plain ...
 

Sounds logical.

Six team members on the court after granting timeouts, and during free throws when the ball is not at the disposal for the free thrower: They aren't really "participating", therefore, no technical fouls charged.

Dead Ball, Clock Stopped ???
 

Last Team A free throw is successful. Clock hasn't started. Six team members on Team A are setting up a full court press. Official becomes aware of the extra player before (dead ball) the ball is at the disposal of Team B for a run-the-endline throwin.

Are six team members on Team A participating? What's the call?

If the ball is dead, the throw-in hasn't started yet, has it? isn't it also a substitution opportunity?

Why wouldn't you just get the extra player off, just like you're supposed to do on any other throw-in before letting the ball become live?

If you're going to look for reasons why the play is illegal, why not also maybe look for reasons why the play is legal?

Maybe I Don't Know It When I See It ???
 

No substitute at the table, and no horn for a substitute. An unused opportunity. And an official is not administering a throwin here, a time that most of us use to make sure that there aren't six team members on the court.

And, yes, I am looking for a valid reason to charge a technical foul here, not because I'm looking to be "that guy" and charge a technical foul, but rather, I'm looking for a citation that tells me when a technical foul can be charged, by the book.

I would love the rule to state that the sixth player must be "caught in the act" while the ball is live, or while the ball is dead and the clock is running, but the rule doesn't say that. It says, "Penalized if discovered while being violated (six team members participating)". Maybe this is one of those NFHS rules where the interpretation must be like Justice Potter Stewart's, "I know it (six team members participating simultaneously) when I see it".

Jurassic Referee, and Snaqwells, have impeccable credentials, but I would like to hear from a few other esteemed members on this issue. What defines, or describes, by the book, six team members participating simultaneously?

And instead of thinking about it, you're still looking for a reason to ignore standard mechanics.

In the situation that you cited, in your own words you said the ball was still dead. That means by rule ....specifically NFHS rules 6-1-2(b) and 7-6-2.....the throw-in has not started. Iow, it's a dead ball and clock not running situation.

What are we supposed to do when we recognize a team has a 6 players on the court when the clock is stopped, the ball is dead and it's BEFORE a throw-in has started? Any throw-in?

Hint: it ain't sitting there with your whistle up your azz waiting for the ball to become live so you can call a career-ending "T".

if you can't figure out for yourself that NOBODY is participating in the game while the ball is dead and the clock is stopped, then there's no hope for you. Sorry, but there it is.

And I'm through wasting my time on this too. You take this nonsense way too far sometimes imo.

Keep It Simple For Stupid ...
 

Seems pretty straight forward.

Sorry for the confusion in the original post

Thank you for the responses.

MTD, you answered the question as to, is there such an animal as a False Multiple Technical.

Thank You.

I will reword this

The question I have is two fold:

1: If the offical discovers during a LIVE ball, 6 players on the floor and blows the whistle to call the T (now a dead ball), at approximately the same time( or within seconds afterwards) the coach realizes they have 6 players on the floor and tries to pull that player off the floor. However the coach had a sub ready (on the bench) and the sub entered the floor without checking in or being beckoned. (A6 is replaced by A7) Still 6 on the floor.

Would this be a False Multiple Technical foul?

2: The official discovers 6 on the floor participating and BEFORE they blow the ball dead A7 subs for A6 without reporting or being beckoned, would this be a multiple Technical foul?

Sorry for the confusion and thank you again in advance

CK

Both plays would be a team technical followed by a player technical. Four free throws for the offended team, ball out of bounds at the division line.

I'm Back ...
 

This "more than five team members participating" is still bugging me.

I know this is poor mechanics, but bear with me and stick to the rules, especially those of you that believe that a technical foul for six players can't be given during a clock stopped, dead ball, situation.

Team A head coach yells to nearest official that there are six Team B players participating. Official sounds whistle to stop the action to count the players. There are six Team B team members on the court during this dead ball, clock stopped, situation. What's the call?

Those who believe that include every single official in the world except you, Old School.

Billy, I think it's safe to say that any official who screws this up and blows his whistle to count is likely to call the TF when he gets to 6.

Neither would be correct.

Hanging On To Straws ...
 

It would make this "more than five team members participating" rule a lot easier to understand if it were true that a technical foul can't be charged if the ball is dead, and the clock is stopped. I would like it to be the NFHS interpretation. I'm almost convinced that it's the correct interpretation. I know that I'm debating with one of the great rules debaters on the Forum, and I'm more than likely going to come out on the wrong end of the debate. But, just answer my question:

Team A head coach yells to nearest official that there are six Team B players participating. Official sounds whistle to stop the action to count the players. There are six Team B team members on the court during this dead ball, clock stopped, situation. What's the call?

Why Just A Three Man Debate ???
 

Thank you for your input. I'm almost convinced that this is the correct answer, but I would still have a tough time explaining it to the coach of Team A.

Billy, methinks you're ten pounds of cuckoo in a four pound clock.....

You're an analytical chemist. Well, analyze this:
1) WHY did the official blow his whistle?
2) What did the official confirm after he blew his whistle?

Now, if you're going to spend most of your waking hours dreaming up these freaking twp's, for Andy's sake couldn't you at least come up with something a little more logical? If anybody hollers at you that a team has 6 on the floor, would anybody with even the tinest amount of experience and rules knowledge not count the players before blowing his whistle? Any putz that doesn't is walking on thin ice imo.

I'm thinking the guy mentioned above is gonna indicate that he did count before the whistle, whether he actually did so or not. If he then counts again, ostensibly to double check, I really don't see how anybody could complain.

Don't Be A Mechanic ...
 

It's not a mechanics question.

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.

Not a good comparison. When you first heard of the free throw error, it was already too late to correct. That would be the same as the coach saying, "Hey, they had six on the floor last possession. Number 10 just sat down while you weren't looking."

Ok, so you ARE agreeing with me that there are times when it's too late to penalize, right? That's my whole point. It doesn't matter when the coach tells you, it's when the rules say as to whether it's too late. In my example, maybe the coach tells you at the right time they should shoot one more FT, but for some reason you don't believe them, or you're busy watching 2 knuckleheads bumping, and it doesn't register with you until it's too late. Well, it's too late. You could call it an official's error for waiting too long for the information to sink in, but it's still too late. Same as in the 6 participating - it's the official's error for blowing the whistle to stop players from participating, but when they do, it's too late to penalize.

There are lots of places in the rules where it seems like "common sense" or "fairness" would dictate we should be able to do something different. However, the rules are relatively clear on how we handle specific instances, even if it goes against what we think would be fair or right. (Hmm...I'm trying to think of something else where that applies...what is it?... ;) )

This is not a question of what is too late. It is a question of whether hearing the words of the coach, which did happen at an acceptable time, would qualify as the actual discovery. I know it is not ideal, but in this case I say yes.

And you seem to be alone.

If the coach tells you about a CE just before a layup that causes the first dead ball, and you don't register and blow your whistle until the ensuing throw-in is completed, are you going to go back and correct the CE?

No because then it would be too late. Again, too late is not the issue here. The call occurred in the accepted time frame.

Okay, i see what you're saying, but the fact remains, the coach telling you something is not sufficient to claim "discovered while being violated."

Coach miscounts, tells you 6 are out there. You blow your whistle and start counting; meanwhile, B6 (a sub waiting to come in) stands up and starts talking to B1. At this point, it's impossible to tell if B6 had been participating or not, you don't remember seeing him check in, and it sure looks like he's on the court now.

Gee, coach told you there were six, now you count six. Call the T, right?

There's a reason we're told we have to discover it "while being violated." You've got rule backing to declare it too late. You don't have rule backing to penalize if you count 6 while the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

We can twist the play all day. What if you count 6 and your own count turns out to be wrong. What I'm saying is if I hear "six on the court" and instinctively (too quickly) blow the whistle, and then can quickly make a count which verifies the infraction to my satisfaction, I would stick with the call. If you think this is unethical, I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
I think this is not totally unlike a play we have discussed before. A1 throws a bad pass, which is headed out of bounds. Official sounds the whistle before the ball hits the wall. Do you give the ball back to A? I don't.

My point is, the rule is there for a reason. If you don't like it, and feel comfortable stepping outside it on a call like this, fine, but don't pretend you have rules backing. No matter what sort of logical gymnastics you're able to perform, you simply don't have rules backing on that.

I wouldn't consider it "unethical" unless you were to claim later, after being challenged (or to prevent such a challenge), that you had counted the players during live ball rather than after you blew your whistle.