Illegal substitution?

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

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.

[johnsonboys03]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

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.

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