10-1-6 Administration ???

[bainsey]

I think we're making this more difficult than it really is.

*If the point of illegal participation is when the ball becomes live, and there are six or more "players" on the court, and
*It is penalized when it's discovered by the officials (how it's discovered isn't relevant) when it's being violated,

then we have a T in sitches B-G. The only reason I don't have one in A, is because as soon as that time out is granted, everyone on the floor is bench personnel, and it's hard for bench personnel to participate.

It seems to me that, the big question is, when does participation actually end?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

As soon as that time out is granted, everyone on the floor is bench personnel.

Are you sure?

2010-11 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES CHANGES
During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

4-34 PLAYERS/BENCH PERSONNEL/SUBSTITUTES/TEAM MEMBERS
ART. 1 . A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court
at any given time, except intermission.
ART. 2 . Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with
a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and
statistician(s). During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for
the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you sure?

You're right. I retract. A player becomes bench personnel when time expires, not during a time-out (4-34-2).

To take it a step further, 4-34-4 defines a team member is "a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and eligible to become a player." So, 10-1-6 says it's a technical foul when more than five TEAM MEMBERS are on the court. When you look at it that way, none of the aforementioned are technical fouls, though I highly doubt that's what the rulewriters meant.

Perhaps this whole thing needs a rewrite.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I highly doubt that's what the rulewriters meant.

I would love to know what the rulewriters meant. A mindreader, I'm not.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Perhaps this whole thing needs a rewrite.

Bingo. Give that man a cigar.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Bingo. Give that man a cigar.

It's not one of those exploding ones, is it?

Okay, so let's say we have a legitimate case for a rewrite. Whom on the NFHS would we contact?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Whom on the NFHS would we contact?

We? Who said anything about we? You're the one who came up with the idea for a rewrite. So it's whom on the NFHS would bainsey contact?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I think we're making this more difficult than it really is.

Thanks for the reply bainsey. One correction: I'm the one making this more difficult than it really is.