Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
I agree where you are coming from, but if you use that logic as well, you could say that the team that calls a timeout for that purpose, could not bring back that player as well. Let us take B calling a timeout out of this situation, they still have to replace the player before a timeout is granted right?
|
No, Team A does not have to replace A1 before they use a TO. That's the p[urpose of the rule change.
They can replace him or they can use a TO to keep him in the game.
He must be replaced or his team must use a TO before Team B can use a TO.
|
BBR, I know that here we often have a hard time determining what the federation was thinking. With that in mind don't you think that the intent of this rule is just to make A burn a TO to get A1 back in the game, no matter when they have to use it? Or do you think they intend for B to be allowed to keep A1 out of the game by requesting a TO before A can? How would you handle this situation, while B has requested TO, you are waiting for A6 to report, A sees what is happening and requests a TO before A6 reports, do you grant their TO at this time and tell coach B nice try? IMHO I think the fed just intended A to burn a TO so if B calls one first then A burns one A1 can come back in, I do agree though that if that is what they intended they need a specific case for it, does anyone have a case book handy from last year, and was it addressed more clearly in there?