Player Game Entry

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

It does if you're going to use that as the basis for charging, or not charging, the technical foul under10-1-9, claiming that all the players, all four of them (the fifth was bench personnel) came onto the court at the same time so 10-1-9 does not apply (as just another ref claimed in an earlier post).

Originally Posted by just another ref

A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time ... If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player. So the 4 on the court in this case are all the players

If just another ref allowed B5 to make the uncontested layup with no penalty because B5 was, according to his definition, bench personnel, would one think that the coach, athletic director, or assigner could have a problem with his interpretation in light of the casebook play?

In light of all that's been posted in this thread, especially JetMetFan's citation (3-3-3), do you still believe this:

Originally Posted by just another ref

A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time ... If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player..

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 have a huge problem with this. The whole purpose of the indirect to the coach is: Coach, you are responsible for your bench.

ART. 2 Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with
a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and
statistician(s). During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

Even if you insist that he is a player (why?) for the purpose of this rule if he is on the bench he is also bench personnel.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If just another ref allowed B5 to make the uncontested layup with no penalty because B5 was, according to his definition, bench personnel, would one think that the coach, athletic director, or assigner could have a problem with his interpretation in light of the casebook play?

You're really off the deep end now. Couple of things: First, I'm not that concerned about the problems of the coach, the athletic director, or even the assignor. I'm interested in getting it right. Second, more important, where did I, or anyone, say it was okay for any member of bench personnel to enter during a live ball regardless of his past or future status as a player?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Even if you insist that he is a player (why?)...

I only used the indirect technical foul situation to make a point about whether, or not ,B5, is a player, or bench personnel. It does matter. Players getting technical fouls do not normally generate indirect technical fouls to the head coach, a pretty important fact to know.

Start another thread about this if you wish. I honestly don't know how I would react to this (indirects) in a real game, and if it would be any different than how I answered on a written exam.

Again, in light of all that's been posted in this thread, especially JetMetFan's citation (3-3-3), do you still believe this:

Originally Posted by just another ref

A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time ... If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player..

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, in light of all that's been posted in this thread, especially JetMetFan's citation (3-3-3), do you still believe this:

The definition of a player, quoted above, is simple enough. There is no provision for a player to be seated on the bench during a live ball. 3-3-3 assumes normal circumstances. When the officials allowed the game to resume with 4 players, the situation is no longer normal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm not that concerned about the problems of the coach, the athletic director, or even the assignor. I'm interested in getting it right.

Don't you think that they, like you, and me, want the situation to be handled correctly.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where did I say it was okay for any member of bench personnel to enter during a live ball regardless of his past or future status as a player?

You never said that is was okay. You implied that you would not penalize under 10-1-9 because all the players (the fifth was bench personnel) did, in reality, come out at the same time. I assumed that you would penalize for some other unsporting reason. The uncontersted layup line was for dramatic effect and I apologize for that.

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

NFHS: 10-1 ART. 9 A team shall not: Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission.

Originally Posted by just another ref

A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time ..If B5 does not enter the court, he isn't a player. So the 4 on the court in this case are all the players

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The definition of a player, quoted above, is simple enough. There is no provision for a player to be seated on the bench during a live ball. 3-3-3 assumes normal circumstances. When the officials allowed the game to resume with 4 players, the situation is no longer normal.

Let's make this "more normal", and less complicated, by not resuming play after a timeout.

Team A requests, and is granted, a timeout. No substitutions are made during this timeout period. During the timeout, while sitting on the bench, one of the uniformed members of the team, who was a player before the timeout, curses at a nearby official. Said uniformed member of the team is charged with a technical foul. Is the head coach charged with an indirect technical foul? The question is not should he be charged, for philosophical reasons, with an indirect, the question is, by written rule, is he charged with an indirect technical foul.

Originally Posted by just another ref

ART. 2: Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and statistician(s). During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

The definition includes the word "not limited to" but I find it rather odd that substitutes are mentioned, but not players. I also find it rather odd that it mentions that all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior during an intermission, but fails to mention the same for a timeout.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Don't you think that they, like you, want the situation to be handled correctly.

You have made repeated references to these others having a problem with your interpretation. My point was that this is not something that ever enters my mind during a game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

My point was that this is not something that ever enters my mind during a game.

Getting it right is what enters my mind during the game. Questioning myself if I got it right enters my mind after the game, especially a game in which a coach is ejected, especially in a written report to my assigner, and to the state interscholastic sports governing body.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I'm with you on this. I'm not calling it unless the 5th player comes running out during play.

[BryanV21]

If B5 was a player before the time out, and wasn't substituted for or disqualified (and the coach has been informed), then he's a player during and after the timeout. Regardless of whether or not he enters the court. So if B5 earns a technical foul during the time out, or after the time out but doesn't return to the court, then the head coach should not get an indirect tech.

But if B5 was substituted for during the time out, and THEN earned a tech, the head coach does get an indirect tech, as B5 was bench personnel at the time.

Now, if we can't determine if B5 was a player or bench personnel at the time he earns a tech, then I'm not giving the head coach an indirect. At least the way I understand things right now. I don't want to have to eject that coach without being sure it was the correct call.

Oh, and it seems that the team would only earn a technical foul when the 5th player illegally enters the court (like in the OP). My question at this point is this... is it ever legal for that fifth player to return to the court? Can the team play with 4 players until the next stoppage of play, and at that time the 5th player can legally enter the court?

[Freddy]

Quote of a Previous Quote by OKREF:
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.

(Follow Up Question by the Author):

Originally Posted by OKREF

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yes. Thoughts:
#1, 10-1 doesn't say that it's penalized when the fifth player returns. It says, "Penalized when they (referring to Arts. 3,4,5,8,9,10) occur." When what occurs? "When a team fails to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission." That means that your conclusion, "Technical foul? I would think no" is based on emotion perhaps, but not based on rule 10-1-9 and it's associated prescribed penalty.
#2, the related Casebook citation does support something you suggest, the execution of the penalty when that fifth player does return into the game. That's what attracted the attention of the officials that something was wrong. But that Casebook situation also had an illegitimate advantage that resulted when the fifth player finally decided to run onto the court. The illegal status of having failed to "have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out..." wasn't discovered by an official until this illegitimate advantage occurred. In this sitch what was illegal was not just the return to the court, it was the "failing to have all players return at approximately the same time." The technical could actually have been called any time an official realized that the team failed to do what it's supposed to do when it was supposed to do it, that is return all five players to the court after a timeout at approximately the same time.
#3, I'm not saying I agree with all this. Only saying that this is all what the rule says. In fact, this has always been one of the ten rules I don't think are fair, that a team is penalized for erringly playing with four players. Heck, if they put themselves at a numbers disadvantage by their own fault, I rationalize that they should be required to play like that until at least the next dead ball. But that's not the rule.
#4, I reserve the right to be wrong. But I don't think I am...on this rule and casebook situation. Then again, there's sometimes a fine line between confidence and cockiness.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Quote of a Previous Quote by OKREF:
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.

(Follow Up Question by the Author):


Yes. Thoughts:
#1, 10-1 doesn't say that it's penalized when the fifth player returns. It says, "Penalized when they (referring to Arts. 3,4,5,8,9,10) occur." When what occurs? "When a team fails to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission." That means that your conclusion, "Technical foul? I would think no" is based on emotion perhaps, but not based on rule 10-1-9 and it's associated prescribed penalty.
#2, the related Casebook citation does support something you suggest, the execution of the penalty when that fifth player does return into the game. That's what attracted the attention of the officials that something was wrong. But that Casebook situation also had an illegitimate advantage that resulted when the fifth player finally decided to run onto the court. The illegal status of having failed to "have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out..." wasn't discovered by an official until this illegitimate advantage occurred. In this sitch what was illegal was not just the return to the court, it was the "failing to have all players return at approximately the same time." The technical could actually have been called any time an official realized that the team failed to do what it's supposed to do when it was supposed to do it, that is return all five players to the court after a timeout at approximately the same time.
#3, I'm not saying I agree with all this. Only saying that this is all what the rule says. In fact, this has always been one of the ten rules I don't think are fair, that a team is penalized for erringly playing with four players. Heck, if they put themselves at a numbers disadvantage by their own fault, I rationalize that they should be required to play like that until at least the next dead ball. But that's not the rule.
#4, I reserve the right to be wrong. But I don't think I am...on this rule and casebook situation. Then again, there's sometimes a fine line between confidence and cockiness.

"Sorry coach, my partner and I failed to count your players after the timeout, and allowed the game to continue, and even though 40 seconds has expired, and your player is legally entering the game now, I'm going to have to give you a T".

Not a conversation I would like to have.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

"Sorry coach, my partner and I failed to count your players after the timeout, and allowed the game to continue.......

I'm not gonna apologize to the coach for failing to do something which is ultimately his responsibility.