Four on the floor

[Adam]

The T is for not having the players all return from a TO at approximately the same time. It's generally not called unless the last returning player gains an advantage by the play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

The T is for not having the players all return from a TO at approximately the same time. It's generally not called unless the last returning player gains an advantage by the play.

10.1.9 SITUATION: Following a charged time-out Team B is still with their
coach on the sideline when the official sounds the whistle to indicate play will
resume. Four players of B return to the court just in time to play defense as A1
attempts an unsuccessful three-pointer. B1 rebounds and throws a long pass to
B5 who enters the court just in time to catch the pass. RULING: A technical foul
is immediately charged to Team B for failing to have all players return to the court
at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission. While it is
true the entire team may be off the court while the procedure is being used, once
a team responds, all players must enter the court at approximately the same time.

What if B5 returns at a time when no obvious advantage is gained? He just walks onto the court and joins his four teammates, either during a live ball, or during dead ball, and is observed by an official walking onto the court. Citation please.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's generally not called unless the last returning player gains an advantage by the play.

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?

[APG]

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?

There's no T for having less than 5 players on the court (save for what's already been brought up). Now if you were working an NBA game, then go ahead and T away for less than 5 on the court.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by APG

There's no T for having less than 5 players on the court (save for what's already been brought up). Now if you were working an NBA game, then go ahead and T away for less than 5 on the court.

By "working an NBA game" you mean selling lemonade in the stands, right? I don't think I'd have that authority.

[Adam]

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?

Not that I recall. But nor is there any rule that tells you it's a T for playing with four.

As for the opposing coach, if he doesn't accept a quick explanation, and proceeds to be an a$$hat, go ahead and call a T. Just not the one he wanted.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Adam

As for the opposing coach, if he doesn't accept a quick explanation, and proceeds to be an a$$hat, go ahead and call a T. Just not the one he wanted.

His head would probably explode and he would absolutely go ballistic. Nice!

[Freddy]

Rooster: become a more regular contributor here 'cuz I like how you talk. There's something fresh and constructively cocky about the phraseology of your posts.

[Nevadaref]

There is a caseplay which says that it is a T following a time-out or intermission, but not following an extended substitution process in which there was confusion.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Rooster: become a more regular contributor here 'cuz I like how you talk. There's something fresh and constructively cocky about the phraseology of your posts.

OK, but be careful what you wish for...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

OK, but be careful what you wish for...

Roosters aren't the same thing as eagles.

[APG]

[QUOTE=The Rooster;863242]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not that I recall. But nor is there any rule that tells you it's a T for playing with four.

Ach. Must've "learned" it in that dream I have where I officiate without pants on. Oh well, thanks for the effort.

Perhaps you saw it in an NBA game where it IS a T for having less than five players on the court..and perhaps that's where the coach was getting the idea from as well.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by APG

Perhaps you saw it in an NBA game where it IS a T for having less than five players on the court..and perhaps that's where the coach was getting the idea from as well.

Sounds about right. I make an effort to avoid cross-contamination but doesn't look like the effort is study enough yet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

Ach. Must've "learned" it in that dream I have where I officiate without pants on. Oh well, thanks for the effort.

No worries. For more of us than we'd like to admit, the first few years of officiating are filled with corrections for rules we knew that just aren't so.

And don't let coaches get you to second guess yourself during a game. Feel free to hit the book to double check something afterwards, but don't let the coach influence your calls.

And I just had that dream.

[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.