The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Player Game Entry (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/98358-player-game-entry.html)

ezmcgowan Wed Sep 03, 2014 04:37pm
Player Game Entry
 
Here's the scenario I need help with: After a timeout, game play starts with one team only having 4 players on the court. Upon realizing they're short, a player runs out from the bench and joins the game. Is this an illegal substitution since there is not really a player swap? If not what is the call? Doesn't this present an opportunity for the 4 man team to sneak a player in to an open spot on the court?

APG Wed Sep 03, 2014 06:46pm
You're going to have to specify under what rule set you're looking for an answer for.

SNIPERBBB Wed Sep 03, 2014 07:42pm
10.3.2 SITUATION B:

After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return and he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play.

RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court.

Freddy Thu Sep 04, 2014 03:57am
Except the play in question occurs after a time out, not a lengthy substitution. Ergo, 10-1-9. T.
NFHS.

JetMetFan Thu Sep 04, 2014 06:03am
Plus...you'll have the fun task of explaining to your supervisor why you let the game start with only four players on one team on the court.

BillyMac Thu Sep 04, 2014 06:06am
Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939710)
Except the play in question occurs after a time out, not a lengthy substitution. Ergo, 10-1-9. T.
NFHS.
What if said situation occurs during multiple, lengthy, substitutions for both teams during the legal substitution "phase" of a time out, or intermission?

Raymond Thu Sep 04, 2014 07:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939713)
What if said situation occurs during multiple, lengthy, substitutions for both teams during the legal substitution "phase" of a time out, or intermission?
Subs have to be at the table by the warning horn, why would you be allowing a lengthy substitution to occur at that point?

PG_Ref Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezmcgowan (Post 939694)
Here's the scenario I need help with: After a timeout, game play starts with one team only having 4 players on the court. Upon realizing they're short, a player runs out from the bench and joins the game. Is this an illegal substitution since there is not really a player swap? If not what is the call? Doesn't this present an opportunity for the 4 man team to sneak a player in to an open spot on the court?
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.

BillyMac Thu Sep 04, 2014 03:35pm
Lengthy ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 939717)
Subs have to be at the table by the warning horn, why would you be allowing a lengthy substitution to occur at that point?
Some may consider several substitutions, by both teams, over forty-five seconds a "lengthy" substitution. And remember, as coaches are matching up their substitutes, a player doesn't have to play a tick, so some substitutes (players) may be withdrawn, which, or course, would make this whole situation even more confusing, and more likely to end up with the situation described in the original post.

Of course, PG_Ref's post makes my comment academic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 939728)
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.
Nice citation PG_Ref.

BillyMac Thu Sep 04, 2014 06:19pm
What If ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 939728)
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 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.
What if B5 doesn't enter?

Freddy Thu Sep 04, 2014 06:42pm
Doesn't Matter
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939747)
What if B5 doesn't enter?
Some around here insist that, since team B is playing with only four players, they'd just let it play out; after all, why penalize a team that is, by playing only four players, penalizing themselves--that's the rationalization. However, they are without rules bases. Whether B5 enters late or not, the prescribed penalty in NFHS is a team T for this situation following an intermission or timeout.
I'm not saying I agree. Just stating what the rule says.

Camron Rust Thu Sep 04, 2014 09:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939748)
Some around here insist that, since team B is playing with only four players, they'd just let it play out; after all, why penalize a team that is, by playing only four players, penalizing themselves--that's the rationalization. However, they are without rules bases. Whether B5 enters late or not, the prescribed penalty in NFHS is a team T for this situation following an intermission or timeout.
I'm not saying I agree. Just stating what the rule says.
Some around there would be right, IMO. The team is penalized if and when B5 enters the court at a different time than the rest. If B5 doesn't return, there is no penalty.

And that is what the above cited case says. If they wanted it to be immediately after 4 returned without the 5th, the play would not continue through a 3-point shot, a rebound, and a long pass to the just entering 5th player before the ruling.

Raymond Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939744)
Some may consider several substitutions, by both teams, over forty-five seconds a "lengthy" substitution. And remember, as coaches are matching up their substitutes, a player doesn't have to play a tick, so some substitutes (players) may be withdrawn, which, or course, would make this whole situation even more confusing, and more likely to end up with the situation described in the original post.

Of course, PG_Ref's post makes my comment academic.



Nice citation PG_Ref.
After the warning horn, and after the subs have legally entered the court, you're allowing coaches to take players off the bench and re-enter the game?

Also, the legal substitution phase is PRIOR to the warning horn of a time-out. What lengthy process are you allowing to occur after the warning horn?

Adam Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 939757)
After the warning horn, and after the subs have legally entered the court, you're allowing coaches to take players off the bench and re-enter the game?

Also, the legal substitution phase is PRIOR to the warning horn of a time-out. What lengthy process are you allowing to occur after the warning horn?
Yeah, I don't get it either. There is no reason a timeout should last more than 60 seconds, and substitutions are the least acceptable reason.

BillyMac Fri Sep 05, 2014 06:19am
Horn Blows at Midnight ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 939757)
After the warning horn, and after the subs have legally entered the court, you're allowing coaches to take players off the bench and re-enter the game? Also, the legal substitution phase is PRIOR to the warning horn of a time-out. What lengthy process are you allowing to occur after the warning horn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939744)
Some may consider several substitutions, by both teams, over forty-five seconds a "lengthy" substitution.
The forty-five seconds I'm referring to is the forty-five seconds before the warning horn. Three substitutes from Team A enter, while four substitutes from Team B enter, all at different times within the forty-five second period; I would call that a lengthy substitution process.

But the topic is academic because it's after a timeout.

Raymond Fri Sep 05, 2014 07:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939762)
The forty-five seconds I'm referring to is the forty-five seconds before the warning horn. Three substitutes from Team A enter, while four substitutes from Team B enter, all at different times within the forty-five second period; I would call that a lengthy substitution process.

But the topic is academic because it's after a timeout.
No, that's a timeout...you only complicate things for younger officials when you introduce such thinking.

bob jenkins Fri Sep 05, 2014 08:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939748)
Some around here insist that, since team B is playing with only four players, they'd just let it play out; after all, why penalize a team that is, by playing only four players, penalizing themselves--that's the rationalization.
I think that should be the rule -- if you resume play with 4 (whether after a TO or a substitution), then play with 4 until the next opportunity to substitute. Or, treat it like an injury in that play is stopped after the "injured player's team" gets the ball.

Freddy Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:53am
Huh?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 939756)
If B5 doesn't return, there is no penalty.
I deem that incorrect by virtue of the PENALTY stated at the end of 10-1: "(Art.3,4,5,8,9,10) Penalized when they occur."
Occurance would be whether B5 entered or not, given the wording of the rule.
Right?

just another ref Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939774)
I deem that incorrect by virtue of the PENALTY stated at the end of 10-1: "(Art.3,4,5,8,9,10) Penalized when they occur."
Occurance would be whether B5 entered or not, given the wording of the rule.
Right?
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.

I'm with Camron here.

Camron Rust Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939774)
I deem that incorrect by virtue of the PENALTY stated at the end of 10-1: "(Art.3,4,5,8,9,10) Penalized when they occur."
Occurance would be whether B5 entered or not, given the wording of the rule.
Right?
The "when they occur" is when the 5th "player" returns at a later time, not when the 4 players enter without the 4th. If only 4 return, all that did so did return at the same time.

Freddy Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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.

I'm with Camron here.
What's the intent of the rule?

Adam Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939780)
What's the intent of the rule?
The intent is not to prevent them from playing with 4, there's already a rule for that. The intent is to prevent deceit, IMO.

Freddy Fri Sep 05, 2014 01:27pm
Trying to Get My Head Around This
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 939781)
The intent is not to prevent them from playing with 4, there's already a rule for that. The intent is to prevent deceit, IMO.
Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?

Adam Fri Sep 05, 2014 02:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939782)
Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?
No, just the rule that says they have to play with 5 if they're available.

Freddy Fri Sep 05, 2014 02:18pm
There's a Lot of Money Riding on This
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 939784)
No, just the rule that says they have to play with 5 if they're available.
I see that point based on 3-1, in regards to which 3.1.1 dictates: "Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available."

Therefore, is it not a logical, sound application of this same rule that, for instance, if a team is caught playing with only four players after a timeout or intermission, that they be then assessed a team technical if/when it is detected that they failed "...to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission"? Especially when that's what 10-1-9 actually says?

Adam Fri Sep 05, 2014 03:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939785)
I see that point based on 3-1, in regards to which 3.1.1 dictates: "Team B must have five players participating as long as it has that number available."

Therefore, is it not a logical, sound application of this same rule that, for instance, if a team is caught playing with only four players after a timeout or intermission, that they be then assessed a team technical if/when it is detected that they failed "...to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission"? Especially when that's what 10-1-9 actually says?
Check local listings.

MathReferee Fri Sep 05, 2014 03:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939782)
Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?
"My team is on the floor." ;)

BillyMac Fri Sep 05, 2014 03:57pm
Reading Is Fundamental ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 939763)
No, that's a timeout...you only complicate things for younger officials when you introduce such thinking.
Thus my statement (twice, now three times) about my post about a lengthy substitution being academic (not practical, realistic, or directly useful).

I will agree that I complicated matters for younger officials before I read PG_Ref's great post, and citation, but so did BadNewsRef by continuing the discussion when it was, after all, academic.

BillyMac Fri Sep 05, 2014 04:11pm
Players, Bench Personnel, Team Members ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.
Sounds good, but what defines the court?

Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)?

I know that all team members are considered bench personnel during intermissions. This rule becomes important when deciding to charge, or not to charge, a coach with an indirect technical foul for technical fouls on players, or on bench personnel, during a timeout, or an intermission. Let's not treat this too casually, it's important, so let's try to figure it out.

HawkeyeCubP Fri Sep 05, 2014 04:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939793)
Sounds good, but what defines the court?

Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)?

I know that all team members are considered bench personnel during intermissions. This rule becomes important when deciding to charge, or not to charge, a coach with an indirect technical foul for technical fouls on players, or on bench personnel, during a timeout, or an intermission. Let's not treat this too casually, it's important, so let's try to figure it out.
A player who was a player before the timeout remains a player during a timeout, I believe...

HawkeyeCubP Fri Sep 05, 2014 04:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezmcgowan (Post 939694)
Here's the scenario I need help with: After a timeout, game play starts with one team only having 4 players on the court. Upon realizing they're short, a player runs out from the bench and joins the game. Is this an illegal substitution since there is not really a player swap? If not what is the call? Doesn't this present an opportunity for the 4 man team to sneak a player in to an open spot on the court?
If the player was a pre-time out player:
NFHS: It's a team T for the rule cited already for failure to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time out.
NCAA: Without some sort of intentional deception to gain an advantage in the officials' judgment, there isn't much rule support to call anything.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Sep 05, 2014 05:06pm
Very Simple Solution.
 
The 2014-15 season will be my 44th year of officiating basketball and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever restarting a game with one or both teams only having four players on the court.

There are at least two and as many as three officials on the court. The ball should not be put into play until each official has counted all of the players on the court at least twice. The non-administering official(s) should keep one hand in the "stop sign signal" directed to the administering official until he or she is satisfied that there are five players for each team on the court. If you have any doubts as to whether each team as the correct number of players on the court do NOT let the administering official put the ball back into play.

I know that I am sounding curmudgeonerly, BUT, this type of thing should not ever happen.

MTD, Sr.

BillyMac Fri Sep 05, 2014 06:23pm
Six Of One, A Half Dozen Of The Other ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 939797)
The 2014-15 season will be my 44th year of officiating basketball and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever restarting a game with one or both teams only having four players on the court.
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: How about one team having six players on the court? Be honest.

Camron Rust Fri Sep 05, 2014 08:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP (Post 939795)
If the player was a pre-time out player:
NFHS: It's a team T for the rule cited already for failure to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time out.
NCAA: Without some sort of intentional deception to gain an advantage in the officials' judgment, there isn't much rule support to call anything.
But again, the ruling specifies, before making the ruling, that several things happened before the 5th player eventually returned. If they wanted it to be an immediate T, it would have stopped the setup when the ball was made live...not after several more actions. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a team from having a player sneak back in late for a potential advantage, intended or not. Thus, the occurrence being penalized is when the missing player enters the court, not when 4 enter without the 5th.

Adam Fri Sep 05, 2014 08:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 939797)
The 2014-15 season will be my 44th year of officiating basketball and I can honestly say that I cannot remember ever restarting a game with one or both teams only having four players on the court.

There are at least two and as many as three officials on the court. The ball should not be put into play until each official has counted all of the players on the court at least twice. The non-administering official(s) should keep one hand in the "stop sign signal" directed to the administering official until he or she is satisfied that there are five players for each team on the court. If you have any doubts as to whether each team as the correct number of players on the court do NOT let the administering official put the ball back into play.

I know that I am sounding curmudgeonerly, BUT, this type of thing should not ever happen.

MTD, Sr.
Sounds great, Mark. However, I'm guessing you just forgot. Lots of thing shouldn't happen, but they do. This is one, and discussions about how to deal with it aren't really helped by saying, "This should never happen."

BillyMac Sat Sep 06, 2014 07:38am
Hat Rack ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939793)
Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)? Let's not treat this too casually, it's important, so let's try to figure it out.
So do we let just another ref's post stand, or does it have to be adjusted? I'm not sure that rookie officials should be hanging their hats on just another ref's statement. Then again, I may be wrong. I have been wrong in the past. Lots of times.

bob jenkins Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939793)
Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)?
No. The Players are still Players and the Team Members are Team Members during a time out.

See 4.34.1

BillyMac Sat Sep 06, 2014 01:00pm
Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 939816)
No. The Players are still Players and the Team Members are Team Members during a time out.
SECTION 34 PLAYERS/BENCH PERSONNEL/SUBSTITUTES/TEAM MEMBERS
ART. 1 A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court
at any given time, except intermission.
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.
ART. 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.
ART. 4 A team member is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform
and is eligible to become a player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939793)
Aren't team members considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission)?
Maybe I should have said: Aren't those on the team considered players if they're sitting on the bench during a sixty second timeout if they were players before the timeout and not substituted for?

Bottom line, they don't have to be within the boundary lines (inbounds) of the court (blue line all the way around) to be considered players, as implied by just another ref's post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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 Sat Sep 06, 2014 05:13pm
In the OP, the timeout is over. If B5 is on the bench, he is not a player.

BillyMac Sat Sep 06, 2014 06:17pm
Why Not ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939820)
In the OP, the timeout is over. If B5 is on the bench, he is not a player.
Assuming B5 was not an entering substitute, and was a player before the time out, and during the timeout (it's not an intermission), why is he no longer a player after the timeout out, even while sitting on the bench. I'm truly not trying to give anybody a hard time, I just want to understand the rule, including the definition of a player versus bench personnel. Pretend that I'm from Missouri. Citation please.

just another ref Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 939728)
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.

JetMetFan Sun Sep 07, 2014 08:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939822)
Assuming B5 was not an entering substitute, and was a player before the time out, and during the timeout (it's not an intermission), why is he no longer a player after the timeout out, even while sitting on the bench. I'm truly not trying to give anybody a hard time, I just want to understand the rule, including the definition of a player versus bench personnel. Pretend that I'm from Missouri. Citation please.
I can see where this can/would cause confusion. According to 3-3-3 there are only two ways a player ceases being a player:

*after (their) substitute becomes a player
*after notification of the coach following (their) disqualification

No one substituted for B5 so their "player" status never ended.

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:51am
A Real Knucklehead ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939825)
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.

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:55am
Taking A Breather, Getting A Drink ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939825)
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?

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:59am
Time For Popcorn ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 939826)
I can see where this can/would cause confusion. According to 3-3-3 there are only two ways a player ceases being a player:
*after (their) substitute becomes a player
*after notification of the coach following (their) disqualification
One more (not in 3-3-3): During an intermission.

4-34-1: A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court
at any given time, except intermission.

OKREF Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:02am
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:11am
Semantics ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939825)
The illegal part occurs when the 5th player in the OP enters the court...
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.

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:25am
Nice Post OKREF ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939832)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939835)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:14pm
Nice Post Camron Rust ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 939839)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:43pm
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939833)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939835)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 01:30pm
This Is The Heart of the Matter
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939835)
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.

just another ref Sun Sep 07, 2014 02:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939829)
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."


Quote:


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.

just another ref Sun Sep 07, 2014 02:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939830)
Even during a sixty second timeout (not an intermission), where there are no substitutions?
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with what happens during a timeout.

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 02:33pm
Timeout ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939847)
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with what happens during a timeout.
Not including my own posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezmcgowan (Post 939694)
Here's the scenario I need help with: After a timeout ...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939710)
Except the play in question occurs after a time out, not a lengthy substitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 939728)
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 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 939758)
There is no reason a timeout should last more than 60 seconds, and substitutions are the least acceptable reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939782)
Is there some other rule that prevents them from playing with 4 specifically after a timeout or intermission other than 10-1-9?
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 ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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..
... 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).

just another ref Sun Sep 07, 2014 02:53pm
During....................after Do you not understand the difference?

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 03:09pm
Goose And Gander ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939851)
During, After ... Do you not understand the difference?
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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..
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 939826)
I can see where this can/would cause confusion. According to 3-3-3 there are only two ways a player ceases being a player:

*after (their) substitute becomes a player
*after notification of the coach following (their) disqualification

No one substituted for B5 so their "player" status never ended.

just another ref Sun Sep 07, 2014 03:18pm
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

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 03:30pm
Casebook, Rulebook ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939844)
"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.

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 03:45pm
Good Question ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939854)
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
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.

BillyMac Sun Sep 07, 2014 03:50pm
Are All Four Of The Players All Of The Players ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939854)
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939856)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939859)


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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:16pm
Player Or Bench Personnel ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939861)
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939863)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:28pm
Get It Right ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939862)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939862)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 939728)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939778)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:35pm
Indirect ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939864)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939861)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939865)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 04:54pm
Get It Right ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939867)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 05:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939832)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 05:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939869)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 06:37pm
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 06:51pm
Answer to the Question Posed
 
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):
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939869)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 09:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939876)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 09:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939878)
"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.

OKREF Sun Sep 07, 2014 09:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939879)
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 Sun Sep 07, 2014 09:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939880)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 02:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939878)
"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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 06:19am
Still Confused In Connecticut ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939887)
... 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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 07:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939890)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 07:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 939892)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 08:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939895)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 08:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 939896)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 09:48am
Es tut mir leid.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939903)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 09:58am
How many people here have ever called a T for a team only having 4 players on the court?

Camron Rust Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 939870)
I'm with you on this. I'm not calling it unless the 5th player comes running out during play.
Agree.

Camron Rust Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939876)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 939905)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:35pm
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRJ1960 (Post 939929)
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.

Adam Mon Sep 08, 2014 01:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRJ1960 (Post 939929)
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).
Following a timeout, it's a team technical, not a player technical.

Following a lengthy substitution process, it's nothing unless there's an advantage created by the player coming back on late.

Adam Mon Sep 08, 2014 01:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939846)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 02:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 939846)
...


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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 03:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 939939)
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 Mon Sep 08, 2014 03:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 939941)
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. :D

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."

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 939800)
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: How about one team having six players on the court? Be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 939804)
Sounds great, Mark. However, I'm guessing you just forgot. Lots of thing shouldn't happen, but they do. This is one, and discussions about how to deal with it aren't really helped by saying, "This should never happen."

Adam:

I will address your post first. I am getting senile in my old age but allowing a game to restart with a team having only four players on the court is something I would remember. I did not say that it should never happen. You said "should never happen." I said: "this type of thing should not ever happen." Remember, the late J. Dallas Shirley said: "Never say never and never say always."


Billy:

Yes, I have had instances of six players on the court of one team, but not I do not remember allowing a game to restart with six players on the court. That said, like every one on this board I have had a sixth player run on the court.

But I remember one situation in a girls' H.S. jr. varsity game years ago. The Home team dressed only six players. We were in the middle of the third quarter and the Visitors had the ball Table Side in their front court and I was Trail when the Visitors requested and was granted a timeout. I administered the Visitors' throw-in after the timeout in front of their bench. V-1 inbounded the ball to V-2 opposite side of the front court. As V-2 drove to the basket, H-1 ran passed me toward her bench and out of my vision. As V-2 scored, H-6 ran into the Visitors' front court. At first glance I thought it was H-1 running back until I realized that it was H-6 and not H-1. Of course we had probably had six players in the court at the same time during this play. None-the-less we had three possible TF scenarios but we choose to charge the Home Team with a TF for having six players on the court. The hilarious part was the V-HC thought we shouldn't allow her team's basket because the other team had six players on the court :eek:.

MTD, Sr.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1