Four on the floor

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Roosters aren't the same thing as eagles.

Good point. Rooster, you are a "floor official", aren't you?

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Good point. Rooster, you are a "floor official", aren't you?

I am indeed, although some coaches might disagree.

On the other hand, I DID graduate from a CHS, just not in that part of the country. We were the Cowboys... (It always cracked me up when our girls' teams played. They were the Lady Cowboys. Wait, whut?)

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

I am indeed, although some coaches might disagree.

On the other hand, I DID graduate from a CHS, just not in that part of the country. We were the Cowboys... (It always cracked me up when our girls' teams played. They were the Lady Cowboys. Wait, whut?)

Much better than the "Dude Cowgirls." That would be a site.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

The Lady Cowboys. Wait, what?

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Much better than the "Dude Cowgirls."

My local high school mascot is the Blue Knights. Girls teams are called the Lady Blue Knights. Why can't the girls teams also be called the Blue Knights? Females can be knights, right? How about Joan of Arc? Wasn't she a knight? How about the Blue Dames? Isn't a dame the female version of a knight in Great Britain?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

That's kinda what were thinking but then added the proposition of the opposing coach (a) insisting on a T and (b) losing his stuffing because we didn't call a T.

On the other front is there any citation where this is explicitly stated, unrelated to following a time-out?

Let him lose his stuffing - playing with 4 is not illegal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Playing with 4 is not illegal.

Sure? Can a team play with only four when five are available? I know a team that has only five available players due to disqualifications, injuries, blood, etc., can "bypass" the "rule" about having to "sit a tick" in order to have five players on the court. I would like to see this discussed in further detail.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Let him lose his stuffing - playing with 4 is not illegal.

Maybe not illegal, but is it permissible? I offer the following below only as cud.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sure? Can a team play with only four when five are available? I know a team that has only five available players due to disqualifications, injuries, blood, etc., can "bypass" the "rule" about having to "sit a tick" in order to have five players on the court. I would like to see this discussed in further detail.

3.1.1 SITUATION:
After six players have been disqualified, Team A has only four who are eligible to continue in the game as players. In a gesture of fair play, the coach of Team B indicates a desire to withdraw a player so that each team will have four players on the court.
RULING: This is not permissible. Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available. If no substitute is available, a team must continue with fewer than five players. When only one player remains to participate, that team shall forfeit the game unless the referee believes this team still has an opportunity to win the game.

[APG]

One situation has a coach trying to purposefully play with less than 5 players. One situation has a team inadvertently playing with less than 5 players.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

Maybe not illegal, but is it permissible?

Can you put this to rest now?

10.3.2 SITUATION B:

After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple
substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains
there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even
though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into
A’s frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The
coach yells for A5 to return and he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches
up with the play. RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5’s return to
the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage

on the court.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...I would like to see this discussed in further detail.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can you put this to rest now?

Consider it in the barn.

My 3.1.1 reference was more a response to BillyMac's request to discuss in further detail. I had no intention to be a bother to anyone.