Found it.

Thanks, I'm not questioning the validity, but I would wonder how scoring is different than participating. Both are tracked by the statisticians, and the participation is arguably more important than the scoring.

We're also assuming the officials have definite knowledge that #15 participated.

How About This Citation ???
 

*3.2.2 SITUATION C: Team A substitute No. 25 reports to the table for the first time with approximately one minute remaining in the second quarter and is beckoned onto the court. In (a), the ball is put in play by a throw-in from A1 to A2. The horn sounds and the scorer informs the officials that No. 25 is not listed in the scorebook. In (b), No. 25 plays the remainder of the second quarter. During halftime intermission, the official scorer realizes No. 25 is not listed in the scorebook and informs the officials when they return to the court before the start of the third quarter. RULING: In (a), No. 25 is currently in the game and became a player when he/she legally entered the court. Since his or her name and number must now be entered into the scorebook, a technical foul is charged to Team A. In (b), no penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game. (If No. 25 attempts to enter the game in the second half, his or her name and number will be added to the scorebook and a technical foul charged to Team A. 3-2-2b; 10- 1-2b)

I really do not believe that this case plays applies here. The T is for when the name is added to the book.

With the foul 15 has to be added to the
book. In the case play the name does not have to be added.

Good Question ???
 

Same question.

Agreed. The case play is assuming that A25 didn't foul (and, probably, didn't score, but I'll admit there's more gray area here). Those who are high-lighting the "no penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game" are over-applying it.

In the OP, A15 (I think) fouled, so must be added to the book, so there will be a T when that happens.

Your citation doesn't address a player who has scored or committed a foul.

# of quarters played
 

The NFHS in this caseplay also does not consider that many states have restrictions on # of quarters played/day. Our state director of officiating told me in this situation to go ahead and put the player in the book to document the quarter played and then assess the technical. Other states may differ so officials may want to check how their state wants it handled.

I'll Call You ...
 

Absolutely positively true. You got me. Red handed.

Please show me a citation in which said player scores, or commits a foul, while participating, before being substituted for, and the "error" in the scorebook is discovered while said player is not a "player" but is bench personnel.

I'm waiting. The clock is ticking (imagine the Jeopardy song here).

After the 10-minute time limit specified in Article 1:

a. Change a designated starter unless necessitated as in 3-2-2a.

b. Add a name to the team member list.

c. Require the scorer to change a team member's or player's number in the scorebook.

d. Require a player to change to the number in the scorebook.

e. Have identical numbers on team members and/or players.

PENALTY: (Art. 2) One foul only per team regardless of the number of infractions. (Art. 2a) Penalized if discovered before ball becomes live to start game. (Arts. 2b, c, d) Penalized when they occur. (Art. 2e) Penalized when discovered.

Context ???
 

Don't forget the casebook citation: No penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game.

I'm still waiting to see a citation that differentiates between a player, not in the scorebook, who scores, or commits a foul, and a player who, while not in the book, doesn't score, or doesn't foul. In both cases the need to add the name to the scorebook is discovered after the player has been replaced by a substitute and is now bench personnel.

Cue the Jeopardy song. Where are Ken Jennings, and Mary Struckoff, when you need them?

By the way, I don't have the answer to this situation, I'm just trying to get a better handle on it.

Yet, that citation doesn't involve the recording of an infraction that is required to be recorded in the scorebook.

What I want to know is why the scorekeeper didn't speak up at the moment the foul was reported. Where did they record the foul?

You have to understand why there is no penalty in the caseplay. There is no penalty in the case play because in this situation we ARE NOT FORCED to add the name to the book thus there is no change in the book to be made until the player comes into the game.

That is not the case with the foul. Now if the ball becomes live again after this happens, its not too late to penalize.

Pretend I'm From Missouri ...
 

Agree 100%. I get it. That citation works for that specific situation. Now please show me a citation where a player, not in the scorebook, scores, or commits a foul, and then there is a need to add the name to the scorebook, and this need is discovered after the player has been replaced by a substitute, meaning said player is now bench personnel.

There is none, the rules that have been posted are clear.

Heck the coach could ask halfway through the game that a name be added to the list and that player wont step on the court for a second on the court or even be out of the country, still a T.(10.1.2)

The status of the player, either as bench personnel or as a player, has no bearing when the name is added to the book. Its just that the name is added to the book and is caught before a live ball.

To answer your question, I don't think my partner gave her time, he reported the foul and then immediately signaled the timeout. The players started going to their benches and then the scorekeeper called him over. By the time he made it to the score table all the players were on their benches.

Incidentally, when my partner came to me to tell me we had a Technical, I asked him did the score table tell him before or after the timeout and he said before the timeout. But that wasn't true, otherwise the string of events would have been different.

As a crew we screwed it up. But ultimately, I think we got the correct ruling.