Unusual situation
 

I am a first year official and had an unusual situation happen in a game Friday. Both teams were coming out of a timeout. As we come out of the timeout, we count 10 players (5 from each team) on the court and deem the ball ready for play. At that time, a player from the blue team sits down on the bench.

The ball was handed to the white team (W1) and inbounded to his teammate (W2). As this point, the blue coach realizes he only has four players on the court and screams for a timeout. The timeout is not rewarded and the game continues. The white team attempts a shot and misses, but they get the rebound and start their offense over again. At this point, the blue coach grabs a player (B5) and sends B5 into the game on defense without checking in at the table.

The game was stopped, and the other official I was working with deemed it an "illegal substitution" and assessed the blue team a technical foul. Is this the correct call?

If all five players don't come onto the court after a timeout, you can inbound the ball to the white team and five guys can rush onto the court for defense without anything being called. Shouldn't the illegal substitution only be called had B5 gone in during the offensive possession?

White team was given two technical foul free throws and also given possession of the ball while the blue coach still maintained he had done no wrong.

Any clarification?

Was B5 one of the ten players on the court when you started?

B5 had already entered game earlier. B5 was not one of the original 5 on the court coming out of time-out, but had entered the game earlier.

If you recognized this before the ball was handed to W, then you should fix it then.

Otherwise, see 10.1.9 (and compare it to 10.3.2).

Then this was called correctly. B5 is not in the game... he can't just rush in. And you can't make a substitution by having one of your 5 sit, and then sending someone else into the game.

If B5 had been one of the 5 on the court (i.e. HE was the one who erroneously left the court and sat down), and they weren't (in the referee's opinion) doing this to gain an advantage or trick the other team - they should have simply played on.

Which is a terrible ruling from the NFHS. :(

Why?

I agree with you, even if I think that starting with a number other than 10 is really something that shouldn't happen.

How am I supposed to know if a random player coming off the bench is a player that was in the game or not in the game at that particular time?

And there's no way that a scorer is going to be on the ball to know the difference. If a player comes in and it seems to meet this criteria, I'm not stopping play -- they might just get away with one.

This isn't hockey.

Rich pointed out how this will normally cause confusion as most scorers don't keep track of which five are currently in the game.

Okay, I'll buy that.

A Line Change ...
 

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.

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.

The OP is a mix of the two situations, if B5 had been one of the five playing prior to the timeout (or had reported prior to the first horn).

Since the OP involved a sub who had not reported running onto the court, it's a technical foul. No different than if, during the course of play no where near a timeout, B5 had just decided to sit down because he was tired of the coach's (or the officials') BS and the coach proceeded to send B6 into the game.

Had a similar situation last year. Team A only had 5 players. At one point during play, the coach from team A took one player aside sat her down and was instructing her. We let play go on. She came back in after the next whistle. A little while later the same girl drove to the basket, got fouled and sprained her ankle real bad--she had to be taken out of the game. Since there were no subs to come in to shoot the ft's who do you suppose, by rule, gets to shoot those free throws?

He doesn't get to do this (stringency may be determined by game level).

I'll bet the opposing coach wanted to pick.

Why can he not do this?

Because if you have 5 eligible players, you have to have 5 on the court.

what bob said.

If he wants to have a consultation with her, that's fine, she can even sit down, but she has to stay on the court.

I blame Gene Hackman for people not knowing this.

I know but wasn't there a post on here that the consensus was if the coach says they are not eligible then we are to believe them.

Now you're adding elements that weren't in the OP.

Not trying to be tricky. If this were to happen, what should I do? Do I mention to the coach he has to play with 5 or?

Nice reference to Gene Hackman, one of those movie inaccuracies that mess with people that are purist. Bottom line, if you have five available (i.e. not injured) then you must play with five.

That's what I would do.

"Coach, if you have five eligible players, you have to have five on the court."

Don't Have To Play A Tick ...
 

One of the few exceptions to the "sit a tick" rule. Similar exception for untucked jersey. Right? How about blood on a uniform?

No, it's not. Such team members are considered not currently eligible. Why? Because there is a rule stating such.
The NFHS issued play rulings for years in that manner (see the one in the past interlace archive involving an asthma attack). Unfortunately, MTD Sr didn't like this and, after a long discussion on this forum, he wrote a Case Play to the NFHS about four years ago involving a player injuring an ankle and the silly NFHS rules editor published it.

If he wasn't eligible why did he put them in the book?

The situation we've discussed before involved a coach stating that the player was temporarily injured and needed some time to recover.

Sit A Tick ???
 

I could have sworn that getting down to five players was one of the few exceptions to the "sit a tick" rule. Are you sure about this Nevadaref?

If my memory serves me, and it usually doesn't, the play involved a free throw. Team A has six eligible players. Before B1 shoots the first of a one and one, A6 substitutes for A1. B1 makes the first free throw, but while attempting to get a rebound, A2 is injured and can no longer participate. A1, who hasn't "sat a tick" (the clock never started) reports to replace the injured A2. I could have sworn that the substitution for the injured player was allowed because "playing with five trumps sitting a tick".

I would appreciate further discussion on this, hopefully with some closure.

Same Old, Same Old ...
 

Back when was coaching middle school, all fourteen of my players were written in the book for every game, in numerical order, even if they weren't playing (injured), or weren't in the gymnasium (illness). Over twenty-five years of coaching, and we never got a technical foul for a player not being in the book, or for a player with a wrong number. Never. Ever.

Found It ...
 

8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s
first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces
B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for
A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3
in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to
immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order
to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still
not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game
and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced
since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

Maybe the player did/said something stupid during the game and got himself kicked off. If the coach says he's ineligible, he's ineligible. I'm not going to second guess that.

I'm also, however, not going to suggest that in a situation like was presented.

Don't Have To Sit A Tick Exceptions ???
 

How about these two situations?

You are correct Billy. The NFHS posted a ruling saying that the requirement that 5 play supersedes the rule requiring a sub to sit out a tick of the clock....and it is logical too, imagine that.

The sit-a-tick rule is to address a specific situation and has exceptions when it conflicts with other rules.

No rule ever trumps another! The rules work together, not in conflict with each other.
You recall the Case Book play correctly. It was also MTD's argument when submitting it that the provision to play with five should "trump" the substitution rule requiring a just exited team member to not return until after the clock has properly started. Unfortunately, the NFHS rules editor at the time bought his silliness because she was never a strong rules person.

The correct ruling is that this is one of the times when a team temporarily plays with fewer than five. At the next stoppage in play after the clock has run either team member would be eligible to enter. I refer you to the asthma attack interp which predates MTD's case play.

SITUATION 9: Team A is playing with five players, but has no substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. Must the player leave the game? May Team A continue with four players? May the player return after recovering from the asthma attack? RULING: A team may continue with fewer than five when there are no substitutes available. The injured/ill player leaving the game may return if/when he or she is able. (3-1-i)

May continue with less than 5 and must continue with less than 5 are not the same.

Your assertion puts the sit-a-tick rule over the 5-players rule if there 5 eligible players. The substitution rule doesn't change a player's eligibility. Eligibility in this case is referring to disqualfications/injuries. Either way you go, one trumps the other.

In fact, the very situation you cite above says they may return when he or she is able. It places no restriction on when he/she may return. It doesn't say he or she may return at the next opportunity after the clock has run. It says when able...that might be right away, perhaps after a couple of FTs and before the clock has started.

The whole point of the substitution rule is not about making a team play with 4, it is to prevent from voluntarily taking someone out and putting them back in by choice. It is intended to speed up the game around FTs by preventing a revolving door after every FT depending on if they are made ore not (1+1, and actually 2 or 3 since that rule predates the rule on only allowing subs before the possible last shot).

All a matter of opinion Camron.
Just like the play ruling from Mary and MTD.

The crux is: How is the team member who just subbed out to be classified?
I have him as currently ineligible to enter. Why? Because there is a rule which says so. The team just burned him when it decided to take him out. This would be the same is he was directed to the bench for wearing his uniform improperly or for blood. He can't play right now. He has to wait and come back later.

The NFHS rules allow for a team to temporarily play with fewer than five when there aren't any available subs. So there is no conflict here and no trumping of one rule by another. You simply enforce both. It's no big deal.

Question for our baseball guys: what happens if a team uses all of its substitutes and then a player suffers a serious injury?

Exceptions To The Rule ...
 

In general, this is certainly true, but there are exceptions (casebook play). These exceptions are few, and far between, but they do happen, and a good official needs to be aware of them.

In FED, they play with 8, and it's an out when that spot comes up.

If they get to 7, or in other codes, it's a forfeit (although the specific timing might vary based on whether the injury was on offense or defense)

While I agree that we should go with 5 when it conflicts, I disagree with this last statement. Substitution rules do affect eligibility, momentarily. Another example is with who is an eligible substitute for technical foul FTs.