Four on the floor

[Rooster]

Third year guy here: Some officials whom I respect and I were discussing a situation where there were four players on the court during a live ball and how the practical applications should go down. I would swear that I read somewhere that it's a T to only have four on the court, but I can't find it anywhere (hence this post).

My first year I had this happen. Boys freshman game: Following a time out and after making eye contact and not counting the players well enough, we put the ball in play. You know that feeling when people starting hootin' and hollerin' because something isn't right but you don't know what it is yet? After checking to see if my fly was open I finally figured it out and when the team with four got the ball and action stalled I blew it dead and asked the coach to send in the fifth player. Everyone kinda chuckled, I was embarrassed, and we moved on without any discussion or argument.

I have looked and looked and the best I can come up with is 3-1-1. I thought I saw it in the Official's Manual but whiffed when I went back to find it. Anyone know where I can find the rule on this one?

Thanks.

[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.

[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.

[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.