Illegal substitution?

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

It doesn't seem like "waisting time" when your partner calls a technical foul for this, and you are trying to show proof in the rule book that It was correct or incorrect. I just want to officiate the game the way the rules commity ask is to.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Read the ruling in that situation

I'm fully aware of the ruling. Read the second sentence of it. The players were beckoned AND entered. Those are the facts of the play. Also look at the rule itself. Sub becomes player when he legally enters court. It doesn't say he becomes a player when you Beckon him. "Legally enters" means something besides beckon....or they would have said in the rule he becomes a player when "beckoned." I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer. Maybe somebody else can.

[BillyMac]

3.3.1 SITUATION F: Substitutes A6, A7 and A8 report only their own numbers
to the scorer for entry. The substitutes are beckoned into the game by an official
and enter the court. Before their replacements leave the court, a fight breaks out
with five (of the eight on-court) players from Team A and three players from Team
B involved. RULING: Substitutes become players when they legally enter the
court; in this case, when the official beckoned them onto the court. The players
being replaced by A6, A7 and A8 were not known at the time of the fight to determine
what players would be classified as "bench personnel." The officials and
scorer shall make an effort to determine who substitutes A6, A7 and A8 were
replacing when the fight broke out. If the players being replaced by the substitutes
cannot be determined, the only recourse the officials have to determine
what penalties to assess the head coach for the involvement of bench personnel
is to assess the maximum penalty. Of the five Team A players involved, assume
three were bench personnel and assess three indirect technical fouls to the head
coach, which results in ejection. Team B would also be awarded four free throws
(two for each additional player involved in the fight). All participants are disqualified
for flagrant fouls. Play would be resumed with a Team B throw-in from the
division line opposite the scorer's table. (10-3-9 Penalty; 10-4-1h Penalty; 2-3)

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm fully aware of the ruling. Read the second sentence of it. The players were beckoned AND entered. Those are the facts of the play. Also look at the rule itself. Sub becomes player when he legally enters court. It doesn't say he becomes a player when you Beckon him. "Legally enters" means something besides beckon....or they would have said in the rule he becomes a player when "beckoned." I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer. Maybe somebody else can.

I know it seems I'm being argumentative, believe me I'm not trying to be. The RULING in case play 3.3.1 situation F reads it differently. And I don't see anywhere that defines legally enter. It doesn't say enters the playing surface or crossing the sideline. It just says enters.

Again I would not have called anything here either. I'm just gathering facts.

[Rich]

My argument is that beckoning a substitute in after a timeout is granted is improper.

There's a procedure for substitutes to report and enter a game during a timeout -- beckoning them is not part of the process.

It's different if I beckon in a sub and the sub enters the court and THEN a team requests and is granted a timeout. The OP doesn't make any such distinction, so I've operated under the assumption that A requested a timeout, the official granted it, and the sub was still sitting at the X.

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

3.3.1 SITUATION F: Substitutes A6, A7 and A8 report only their own numbers
to the scorer for entry. The substitutes are beckoned into the game by an official
and enter the court. Before their replacements leave the court, a fight breaks out
with five (of the eight on-court) players from Team A and three players from Team
B involved. RULING: Substitutes become players when they legally enter the
court; in this case, when the official beckoned them onto the court. The players
being replaced by A6, A7 and A8 were not known at the time of the fight to determine
what players would be classified as "bench personnel." The officials and
scorer shall make an effort to determine who substitutes A6, A7 and A8 were
replacing when the fight broke out. If the players being replaced by the substitutes
cannot be determined, the only recourse the officials have to determine
what penalties to assess the head coach for the involvement of bench personnel
is to assess the maximum penalty. Of the five Team A players involved, assume
three were bench personnel and assess three indirect technical fouls to the head
coach, which results in ejection. Team B would also be awarded four free throws
(two for each additional player involved in the fight). All participants are disqualified
for flagrant fouls. Play would be resumed with a Team B throw-in from the
division line opposite the scorer's table. (10-3-9 Penalty; 10-4-1h Penalty; 2-3)

Wow thank you for typing that out. I wasn't willing to do that. The RULING section is what is leading me apparently astray. Especially the last half of the first sentence.
"In this case, when the official beckoned them onto the court."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Wow thank you for typing that out. I wasn't willing to do that. The RULING section is what is leading me apparently astray. Especially the last half of the first sentence.
"In this case, when the official beckoned them onto the court."

Focus on the word "onto" and not the word "beckon."

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

I know it seems I'm being argumentative, believe me I'm not trying to be. The RULING in case play 3.3.1 situation F reads it differently. And I don't see anywhere that defines legally enter. It doesn't say enters the playing surface or crossing the sideline. It just says enters.

Again I would not have called anything here either. I'm just gathering facts.

I don't consider you argumentative...just hard headed. I've heard that before...from my wife...(I'm joking).
Anyway, look at 3-3-2. Sub is to remain "outside the boundary" until official beckons, whereupon he/she shall ENTER. (Inside the boundary).

So, sub is remaining "outside the boundary." When beckoned he is then TO ENTER. We know he becomes player when he legally enters....

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by Rich

My argument is that beckoning a substitute in after a timeout is granted is improper.

There's a procedure for substitutes to report and enter a game during a timeout -- beckoning them is not part of the process.

It's different if I beckon in a sub and the sub enters the court and THEN a team requests and is granted a timeout. The OP doesn't make any such distinction, so I've operated under the assumption that A requested a timeout, the official granted it, and the sub was still sitting at the X.

Your assumption is correct. If this is the correct ruling than that is the way I will handle it and advise others to do it as well. I was just looking for it to be spelled out. I know some will say it is and I'm just not understanding it. Its just while doing my due diliegence I discovered the ruling in situation 3.3.1 F. I hope someone can at least acknowledge I have at least a reason to ask.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Wow thank you for typing that out. I wasn't willing to do that. The RULING section is what is leading me apparently astray. Especially the last half of the first sentence.
"In this case, when the official beckoned them onto the court."

It could be written better but I believe they are saying their entry was legal because they were beckoned. They don't mean that beckoning equals entering.

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It could be written better but I believe they are saying their entry was legal because they were beckoned. They don't mean that beckoning equals entering.

Thank you. And yes I am hard headed. But not to much to be corrected. Just need proof haha.

[Adam]

This boils down to a couple of things. First, even if you know who A6 was originally going to replace, there's no rule that obligates them to stick with it. Coaches change their minds all the time, even after A6 gets onto the court, due to changing circumstances on the court.

Even if the sub was beckoned, came onto the court, and then they called a timeout, there's no procedure in place to find out who's been replaced before granting a TO request. You still don't know who was supposed to be replaced.

You never know until that player leaves the court.

Aside from all that, there's no prescribed penalty here anyway. It's not a technical foul.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Thank you. And yes I am hard headed. But not to much to be corrected. Just need proof haha.

I'm glad you care enough to keep after it until you have it figured out. Keep asking until you are comfortable.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... in this case, when the official beckoned them onto the court.

"In this case" because, in many cases, like during timeouts, or an intermission, the substitute simply reports and is not beckoned onto the court (he goes back to his huddle). In some cases the substitute doesn't even have to report. Substitutions between halves may be made by a team representative.

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"In this case" because, in many cases, like during timeout, or an intermission, the substitute simply reports and is not beckoned onto the court (he goes back to his huddle). In some cases the substitute doesn't even have to report. Substitutions between halves may be made by a team representative.

Ok so I would say the conclusion of this would be that the procedure on which we handle subs at the Table during a timeout needs to change. We (our chapter) always brought the subs in then reported the timeout. But even though they were there before the timeout doesn't matter, it would still fall under the timeout substitution rule. They don't need to be beckoned. And since they are at the Table there is no need to check in again before the first horn because being There they already checked themselves in.
But if it was not a timeout situation or intermission like in the case play example the beckoning is what would make them a legal player.

Am I correct in saying that?