You breaking out the red pen doesn't do anything productive in this thread except try to make yourself look smarter. If you're so concerned about his spelling and grammar, send him a PM.

We're done talking about this.

Grammar Nazi stuff isn't a good enough reason to feign ignorance. You could have just as easily removed the offending words once you realized they were being deleted if you wanted to pick on his typos.

It's time to move on from this, though, and keep it on topic.

I would like everyone to read case play 3-3-1 stuation F
It is not the same situation, and it Is to lengthy to type, but It does say that "substitutes become players when they legally enter the court, in this case, when the referee beckoned them into the court.

No.

I can beckon a substitute and a coach can still call that person back.

case play 3-3-1 stuation F
It is not the same situation, and it Is to lengthy to type, but It does say that "substitutes become players when they legally enter the court, in this case, when the referee beckoned them into the court.

The play 3.3.1f says the players "are beckoned into the game AND ENTER the court. Beckoning alone is not enough.

See above.

What's still unclear is why any official would beckon a player after granting and administering a timeout. That procedure is already covered in the rules and those subs do not *require* beckoning by an official.

Yes I did read that In the substitution rule. But In this case the player was at the Table before the time out was granted. Do you just ignore them and look over there head and grant the time out? That question isn't a challenge it truly is me asking?
In the original post the referee beckoned the player in the game before REPORTING the timeout.

That isn't the way 3-3-1 situation F reads. I'm looking for it in the rule book that defines when a player is legally on the court. With this in black and white I would say the beckoning is what makes him legal.

Second sentence says it. I've cited multiple rules. If your partner beckoned the player and he ENTERED the court(inbounds) before timeout was granted he became a player. If the timeout was granted without him entering he did not become a player. Look also at 3-3-2 (rules have dashes). You will see that beckoning is one thing and entering is another.

Yes, you do.

Coach calls the timeout, you find out if it's a 30 or 60 and then you go to the table.

By now, the player should already be heading over to the team huddle. If not, I'm not beckoning the player.

I did use dashes. That was Bigcat that used decimals. But thank you for your input

Case plays are decimals. Rules are dashes. The proper cite is 3.3.1F.

Read the ruling in that situation

Please Take A Seat Coach ...
 

Agree. Take it a step further and assume that either A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, or A6 decides to mouth off, using profanity, to an official. Is the coach seatbelted (technical foul on bench personnel), or not (technical foul on a player)? We don't need to know how may angels can fit on the head of a pin (a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value), but we do need to know answers to questions posed in this thread, like who's a player, and who is bench personnel.