Originally Posted by johnsonboys03 (Post 977959)

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?

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 977961)

If you beckon the player he has the RIGHT to enter without being penalized. However, he does not become a "player" until he actually steps inside the boundary. If the coach changes his mind after you beckon but before he steps inside the boundary he can be withdrawn and same players stay on court.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 978040)

More than that, I'd say that even after he steps on the court, he can be withdrawn since we have no way of verifying or enforcing whom he was meant to replace.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 978044)

I think technically, when A6 enters, he is a player and somebody else isn't. We would be justified in saying somebody else is going off.

As a practical matter, if the kid steps on and coach changes mind right away, I'm not going to demand somebody else go off...

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 978046)

What if the kid gets half way to the cluster of players lining up for a spot throw-in on the end line and coach calls him back? I don't see any way to demand someone come off. No one exited, so no one has to "sit a tick."

Until someone actually exits the court, I'm not convinced there's anything to enforce.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 978047)

We have the rule that says the sub becomes a player when he legally enters and the other person becomes bench personnel at that moment. True we don't know who he intended to go in for but we know he IS a player now. We also have the case play above which talks about 3 subs going in and not reporting who they r going in for. Fight starts among original players on court. Play says assume those involved were bench personnel if we can't figure out who specifically they were coming in for. 3.3.1 f.

I think if he comes all way to the end line throw I would make somebody else come off. Tell coach to choose. I do think that is what rule requires.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 978048)

I disagree, and if I was the coach, I'd tell you to pick a player if you pushed it. If the other coach whines, I'd simply tell him since no player left the court, there's no one for whom we can enforce 3-3-4. I think anything more is just looking for trouble where we don't need to.

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 978051)

I think this has been said before, but just grant the TO and let the subs work themselves out during the TO.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 978050)

I'd pick your best player:). Frankly, I'd ask the kid who he was coming in for. If he and table didn't know I'd ask the coach and tell him when the sub entered he became a player. one of the 5 became a sub. You pick. I'm not worried about anybody whining. I don't think it would be a big deal for him to follow through on his original plan.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 978062)

I'm now a passenger in a car w my 16 year old daughter. I will get back to you later....if I'm still alive...:o

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 978067)

So ... wouldn't you have liked to leave even after you had been beckoned into and entered the car? ;)

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 978062)

I'm now a passenger in a car w my 16 year old daughter. I will get back to you later....if I'm still alive...:o

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 978073)

Mine is 15. I don't want to hear any of your stories.