Player Game Entry

[just another ref]

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.

Caseplay
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 immed*iately 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.

If "on the sideline" is not on the court, I am comfortable that a team member sitting on the bench is not on the court. Therefore, by definition, this team member is not a player. BUT, none of this matters anyway. The illegal part occurs when the 5th player in the OP enters the court, whether he was a player before that or not. A team is not allowed to have only 4 players on the court when the 5th is available, but there is no penalty if indeed this does occur.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If "on the sideline" is not on the court, I am comfortable that a team member sitting on the bench is not on the court. Therefore, by definition, this team member is not a player.

So if a uniformed person on the team, who was player before the timeout, who continues to be player during the timeout (is not substituted for, and it's not an intermission), and who mistakenly believes that he has been substituted for and remains on the bench after the timeout (after his four teammates enter the court to participate in the game), and, who, while the bench, stupidly (he's a real knucklehead) curses a nearby official, thus being charged with a technical foul; just another ref will also charge the head coach with an indirect technical foul because said person is bench personnel?

If that's the coach's third technical foul, and he's ejected, I want to be sure that I'm applying the rule correctly when I call my assigner later that night, and when he hears from the athletic director the next morning. Right now I'm "leaning" toward this person being a player, but I'm not 100% sure, which is why I would like to hear others' opinions in this thread.

I'm not sure that this is relevant but I thought that it would be worth throwing on the pile:
3-3-1-A- Note: When the substitute(s) is not properly reported, the player(s) in the game at
the conclusion of the quarter/when the time-out was called shall begin play for the
new quarter/after the time-out.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So if a uniformed person on the team, who was player before the timeout, who continues to be player during the timeout (is not substituted for, and it's not an intermission), and who mistakenly believes that he has been substituted for and remains on the bench after the timeout (after his four teammates enter the court to participate in the game), and, who, while the bench, stupidly (he's a real knucklehead) curses a nearby official, thus being charged with a technical foul; just another ref will also charge the head coach with an indirect technical foul because said person is bench personnel?

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."

3-3-1-A- Note: When the substitute(s) is not properly reported, the player(s) in the game at
the conclusion of the quarter/when the time-out was called shall begin play for the
new quarter/after the time-out.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Yes, anyone who reports after the warning horn gets to wait. And at the high school level, around here, the table almost always lets me know. If he "really needs" a sub, he should have sent him sooner.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...


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.

I've never spoke to coaches about it, but I think it in my head a lot. I'm sure the more cunning coaches do this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I've never spoke to coaches about it, but I think it in my head a lot. I'm sure the more cunning coaches do this.

But if they do notice, it's a technical foul. Not a risk most want to take on, and certainly not something I ever want to suggest to a coach. Am I understanding you guys wrong?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

But if they do notice, it's a technical foul. Not a risk most want to take on, and certainly not something I ever want to suggest to a coach. Am I understanding you guys wrong?

Oh, I never have conversations with coaches, on or off the record.

But I know there have been times when I see a team breaking the huddle, and I wonder to myself, "are there any new players who didn't check in?"

Especially those times when only 4 players come on the court after a time-out, then the coach turns and says, "Billy, what the hell are you doing, get in there."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If "on the sideline" is not on the court, I am comfortable that a team member sitting on the bench is not on the court. Therefore, by definition, this team member is not a player.

Even during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission), where there are no substitutions?

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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?

[OKREF]

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?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)?

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 casepley (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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

"What is the role of the Casebook?".

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.