Player Game Entry

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

I'm not going to start play with only 4 guys on the floor. Which is my responsibility.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm not going to start play with only 4 guys on the floor. Which is my responsibility.

It is dangerous to say flatly what you're not going to do. The officials in the OP didn't meant to do it either. But, at the end of the day, it is the team which is penalized, not the officials. That is what I mean when I say it is ultimately his responsibility.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by OKREF

"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.

The alternative conversation is: "Sorry coach, my partner and I failed to count your opponent's players after a timeout and allowed the game to continue. And even though you have quoted to me the rule that a team technical is merited, I'm not going to enforce that rule because . . ."

Choose your conversation.

One results from emotion. The other derives from a rule. When given the unsavory choice between those two, what would be the best to choose? You're gonna have a coach mad either way. Only thing is, only one of them didn't make sure he had five players on the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

... even though you have quoted to me the rule that a team technical is merited, I'm not going to enforce that rule because . . ." ... derives from a rule.

Bingo. Know the rules.

Now that we've, hopefully, finally, moved away from the player/bench personnel debate, I am still confused about the whether the technical should be charged when the officials realize that there are only four players on the floor, or when the fifth player enters from the bench.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Bingo. Know the rules.

Now that we've, hopefully, finally, moved away from the player/bench personnel debate, I am still confused about the whether the technical should be charged when the officials realize that there are only four players on the floor, or when the fifth player enters from the bench.

I'm doing when they enter, as that's how I interpret the case play.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm doing when they enter, as that's how I interpret the case play.

If that's when it is noticed, then that's when it must be called, using the specific caseplay provided in 10.1.9.

If it is noticed prior to that, the official who calls it then has support of the clear reading of the rule in 10-1-9.

Choose your poison.

On to another valuable sitch..........

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Freddy

If that's when it is noticed, then that's when it must be called, using the specific caseplay provided in 10.1.9.

If it is noticed prior to that, the official who calls it then has support of the clear reading of the rule in 10-1-9.

Choose your poison.

On to another valuable sitch..........

Late to the discussion, but if only 4 return, it is possible (and legal) in theory that the team only has 4 players available (other players could be injured or sick) and the officials failed to ask for an explaination as to why only 4 were playing prior to resuming play.

Therefore, I'm not calling a T unless the 5th player re-enters the court during the live ball. Until that point, all (four) players have returned at approximately the same time in accordance with 10-1-9

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Late to the discussion, but if only 4 return, it is possible (and legal) in theory that the team only has 4 players available (other players could be injured or sick) and the officials failed to ask for an explaination as to why only 4 were playing prior to resuming play.

Therefore, I'm not calling a T unless the 5th player re-enters the court during the live ball. Until that point, all (four) players have returned at approximately the same time in accordance with 10-1-9

I quit.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I quit.

I am sorry. That response betrayed a bad attitude that overcame me, the kind of snippy reply I wouldn't find pleasant if others reacted that way.
In the spirit of the enabling fellowship of officiating, let me invite the posting person who, joining admittedly late, to review all the discussion and responses from the beginning of the thread. Then a well-rounded personal interpretation can be formulated based on whatever clarity is gleaned from that review.

[Raymond]

How many people here have ever called a T for a team only having 4 players on the court?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Agree.

[Camron Rust]

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.

Until you have the 2nd player return you haven't had the occurrence that needs to be penalized....players returning at different times. Up to that point, all players that returned did so at the same time.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I am sorry. That response betrayed a bad attitude that overcame me, the kind of snippy reply I wouldn't find pleasant if others reacted that way.
In the spirit of the enabling fellowship of officiating, let me invite the posting person who, joining admittedly late, to review all the discussion and responses from the beginning of the thread. Then a well-rounded personal interpretation can be formulated based on whatever clarity is gleaned from that review.

Sorry if I restated something already mentioned. I was trying not to repeat everything that was already discussed (like the officials should not resume play with 4 in the first place -- obviously).

I agree with the thinking (based on the case play cited) which is that the technical foul should occur immediately when the 5th player enters the court after the others -- not automatically if the officials realize only 4 are playing. Until the 5th player enters the court (not at the same time as the others) I do not see how 10-1-9 has been violated.

I was making the point that it is also not clear to me that 3.1 has been violated because the officials can not say for sure that the team does have five players available. So one other reason (which I didn't think had been mentioned) as to why I would not stop play and call a technical is because I can think of at least one scenario (although unusual) where it would be legal to play with 4 players -- specifically a situation where the 5th player is the only player available and he/she becomes injured/ill during the timeout.

What am I missing?

[DRJ1960]

Having read all six pages to this point ... The consensus is that the player who enters the court after the ball is live will receive an immediate tech? (Irrelevant whether or not he gains any advantage).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Having read all six pages to this point ... The consensus is that the player who enters the court after the ball is live will receive an immediate tech? (Irrelevant whether or not he gains any advantage).

Aside from the number of pages, and who receives the T, yes. I see 3 pages (forum options control how many posts you see on a page) and it is a team T, not a player T.