Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
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 don't think so. B cannot be granted a timeout until A1 is replaced or A uses a timeout and keeps him in the game.
[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 12th, 2004 at 09:39 AM]
|
This is why I think the intent was just to make A burn a TO. Where does it say that it is ok to grant the TO to A before the player directed to leave the game is replaced? 3-3-5&6 both say unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to..... but no where does it say that you can set aside the provision that the substitution be completed before a TO is granted. With this in mind I think the intent is to set aside the substitution requirement, and if that is the intent then I don't think it is a big stretch to also apply it to the situation where B calls TO first...