Player Game Entry

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.