Let's take this one more step. 10-1 says it's penalized when the fifth player returns. What if they play with four and there is a dead ball. B5 legally subs in. Technical foul? I would think no.

Semantics ...
 

10-1-9: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same
time following a time-out or intermission.

Maybe this rule isn't written clearly (big surprise for the NFHS), although it appears to be simple, direct, not very complex, and quite clear?

Is the technical foul charged for not having all five players entering at the same time?

Or is the technical foul charged for the fifth player entering at a time other than when the four entered?

I'm a big caseplay fan, and this caseplay (below) seems to indicate that the second interpretation (above, fifth player entering at a time other than when the four entered) drives the technical foul being charged:

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.

Nice Post OKREF ...
 

I may agree with you, but it's not exactly what the rule states (10-1-9: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission), it's what the casebook play (10.1.9) states. The rule can be read a few different ways. I'm one who believes that the casebook play, especially one that deals with a very specific situation, as written, "trumps" the rule, as written, but I'm sure that others believe differently.

It sort of does....it is only a penalty if some return at a different time than the rest. The implication in that the remaining player actually returns at a different time causing the infraction. Not returning isn't the infraction. To have a different time, both events must occur.

Nice Post Camron Rust ...
 

The Forum needs a "Like" button.

However, there's a difference between "some", and "all" (Fail to have all players return to the court at ... the same time)

"Implication" is a good term to use in reference to this rule, casebook play, and situation. What did Felix say to Oscar about implication? Wait? I'm being told ... What? Assume? Not Oscar? Miss Olam? Well you get my drift? Right?

Isn't the casebook and the plays included the interpretation of the Rulebook? It does say to penalize when the fifth player enters. The case play clearly states that the player entered during a play, and says to penalize immediately upon returning to the floor. Any thoughts on my original question?

This Is The Heart of the Matter
 

I object to your belief and where it will take us if applied in other places. The whole debate comes down to this, and I believe this is a healthy debate we must have and unanimously agree on when done: "What is the role of the Casebook?"
A) Those who are saying that there can only be a penalty executed on this play after the fifth player tries to sneak back onto the floor are saying that the Casebook narrows what the rule says and thus that is the only way a rule can be understood--in the light of the expressed application in the Casebook. That seems to be what BM's point, thrown onto the table for the sake of discussion, I assume, is.
B) Those, like me incidentally, who say that when an official notes that after a timeout one team is playing with only four players, that at that time a team technical is deserved agree with the simple phraseology of the expressed rule. Another time an official may note the infraction is when he notes a player trying to sneak onto the floor as the fifth player who was supposed to be out there. There may even be yet another application for this rule, I just can't think of one right now.
Now, the Casebook does explain how to execute a judgment on one scenerio that might result related to this rule, but a Casebook citation does not infer that that is the only scenerio that can happen whereby the original rule applies.
Help me here. Is my point a valid one?
It's important to me because this very debate is an open wound awaiting treatment by absolute correct interpretation in our area here.

If this team member is on the bench at this point, he is definitely bench personnel. I doubt if even you would go back and say "Wait a minute. This guy was in the game before the timeout. You're off the hook, coach."


Does anybody attempt to keep up with this? I don't. I have advised coaches, off the record, whatever you do, don't send a player to report at the end of the timeout, because they may not be allowed in. If you really need a sub at this point, just send him in. Chances are, nobody will notice.

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with what happens during a timeout.

Timeout ...
 

Not including my own posts:

There are more.

This whole thread is about a person in uniform sitting on the bench after a timeout instead of returning to the floor where he belongs.

There are also posts regarding whether, or not, said person on the bench is a player, or is bench personnel.

It is my contention that said person is a player in both this situation, and in another situation in which an indirect technical foul is not being charged to the head coach because said person is not bench personnel.

The definition of a player in one situation should be the same as the definition in another situation.

Some posters in this thread ...

... contend that just because the person is not within the boundaries of the playing court (blue line all the way around) that it's impossible for said person to be considered a player. Although I have some other questions about some other aspects of this thread, aspects where, although I have an opinion, I'm unsure of the correct interpretation, I reject that contention (person is not within the boundaries of the playing court, it's impossible for said person to be considered a player) wholeheartedly.

If said person is a player during a timeout, then that person should be considered a player after a timeout, unless a substitution, or a disqualification, occurs, even when they're sitting on the bench. Also, 3-3-1-A-Note tells us that said person is also player after an intermission (although not during the intermission).

During....................after Do you not understand the difference?

Goose And Gander ...
 

Do you not understand that I'm using the definition of a player during a timeout to see how a player is defined after the timeout? As far as I know, that definition doesn't change because the timeout ends (although the situation changes if it's an intermission, and it ends).

If said person is a player during a timeout, then that person should be considered a player after a timeout, unless a substitution, or a disqualification, occurs, even when they're sitting on the bench. Also, 3-3-1-A-Note tells us that said person is also player after an intermission (although not during the intermission).[/QUOTE]

Do you still defend this:

If B5 was a player before the timeout, he was a player during the timeout, and he was a player after the time out, unless he was substituted for, or was disqualified, whether he's sitting on the bench, or playing the game within the boundaries of the playing court.

With regard to the OP, it makes no difference whether this person is a player or not while on the bench.

If you insist on pursuing this angle: Player A1-A5 are in the game prior to a timeout. During the timeout A10 is told to enter the game but does not report. After the timeout A10 enters the game and play is allowed to resume, but both A4 and A5 mistakenly remain seated on the bench. Question: Which one is a player at this point? Answer: neither

Casebook, Rulebook ...
 

I view the casebook as being very specific. I view the rulebook as being more general.

Sometimes the rulebook can be ambiguous. Most of the time the casebook is more to the point.

The casebook often states that when A and B happen then we interpret it as C and penalize with D. It's pretty hard for a coach, athletic director, or assigner to argue with that.

The rulebook is often more open to interpretation (which show up as NFHS interpretations in the casebook (thus the need for a casebook), or in annual rule interpretations), even when one knows the definitions like the back of their hand.

Some casebook interpretations could never be interpreted in a specific manner if we only relied upon the rulebook.

Good Question ...
 

4-34-3: A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court.
If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live.
A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or
after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

A10 is a player. I don't know if A4, or A5, is a player. I do know that, by definition, one of them is a player, and, by definition, one of them is bench personnel. I do know that if either A4, or A5, come off the bench to score an uncontested layup, I'm blowing the play dead as was described in the original post.

In the case where either A4, or A5, curse at me from the bench, short of any input from the coach regarding the substitution, I'm probably calling both of them players and hand out the lesser penalty (no indirect to the coach).

I don't see how a coach, athletic director, or assigner, could find fault with my handling of these situations. It would be difficult for any of them to find any written fault with how I handled this.