Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianaref
Could this situation argue for letting the subs in:
1998-99 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 11: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting a two-point try and no goal is scored. Substitutes B6, B7 and A6 have properly reported. The game is delayed because of a repair problem with the basket prior to A1’s first attempt. Will the substitutes be allowed to enter because of this undue delay?
RULING: Because of the unusual delay, B6, B7 and A6 may enter. (3-3-1c)
IMO, probably not, since this substition situation is different than the OP's.
|
Could it be used to support the argument to let the sub in? Certainly. Does it provide a conclusive ruling for the situation? I don't think so.
I don't believe that a clean up of some water on the court and the issuance of a team delay warning constitutes "an unusual delay," but that is JMO and it certainly could be construed as such. However, I would declare a delay to clean up blood on the court by game administration or a trainer to qualify. So it could go either way.
The whole reason that I posted this situation is that there isn't a clear cut answer and I hoped that some good discussion would ensue.
Perhaps next year we will get a case book play on this.
Proposal:
During a time-out B6 reports to the scorer after the warning horn is sounded and the official informs the substitute that he/she will not be able to enter until the next substitution opportunity. However, following the second horn to end the time-out, Team A fails to have the court ready to play due to having spilled water on the floor. After the official charges team warning for delay to Team A may B6 now enter the game?