[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Tony:

Sure it does. Look at the analogy I used in my Post #4 with regard to allowing a team to change its starting lineup so that a substitute can shoot TF free throws which were the result of a TF that occurred during the officials' jurisdiction when there is less than ten minutes before the start of the game. A team is charged with a TF when it changes its starting lineup after the ten minute mark before the start of the game unless it is for an injury or illness, but any player, including an incoming substitute, can shoot TF free throws. A team has always been allowed to "change" its starting lineup without penalty to allow an incoming substitute to shoot the free throws even though the rules stated that a team could not change its starting lineup without incurring a TF for the making the change. That is a case where one rule trumps the other.

Are you going to tell Team B that it must play with only four players because B2 cannot re-enter the game until the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has started? B2 is an eligible substitute and his re-entry does not violate the reason for the existence of the re-entry rule as written in the rules.

MTD, Sr.

I don't go back as far as you, so I can't say what used to be in the rules and what didn't. But I can say that your example is not currently a case of one rule trumping another. It is a case of there being a specific exception which permits this action. If that exception were not in there, I would make one of the five named starters attempt the technical foul FTs or assess a T to the team for changing it's starting lineup in order to get someone else in there to shoot them.

Why do you keep saying that B2 is an eligible substitute when the RULES clearly state that he is NOT?
Team B must temporarily play with four just as in situation 5. Too bad for them. That's the way it goes when you show up for a game with very few team members. Just ask the Arizona State women's team.