[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nice, but irrelevant citations.


That player had never left the game....and a team can not be forced to take the timeout. So, the team basically has the choice to take the timeout or play with 4.



Team A had 5 healthy and non-disqualified players without A1 returning. There was no conflict between having 5 players and the substitution rule. A1 entered illegally because there was no rule that could even be argued to apply. Nice try but no cigar.


Neither of these citations are definitive....they're similar, but not definitive.


Now, consider the following unlikely but plausible play...

Team A and B each have 10 players...all eligible. During a dead ball, team A and team B each sub all 5 players for the 5 on the bench. Before the clock is started, the 10 players who just entered get into a fight and are disqualified (there were 10 players involved in the recent WNBA fight). The players on the bench do not participate in the fight. By your interpretation, none of the remaining non-DQ'd players can be allowed into the game. Since there are no players in the game, the clock can't be started (who's going to execute a throwin). Since the clock can't be started, the players can't come into the game. We're gonna be here a long time!

At some point, the rule requiring players to be on the court clearly trumps the requirement that they remain out after being substituted.

The situation above (#5) is closest but is missing the 6th player who is healthy and able to play and was removed before an injury....akin to replacing a starter before the game begins when one becomes injured during warmups.

Camron:

I love your ten (10) player situatioin. But, I don't know how unplausible the situation could be in today's goofy society.

MTD, Sr.