Illegal substitution?

[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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

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?

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 If the coach changes his mind after you beckon but before he steps inside the boundary he can be withdrawn and same players stay on court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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...

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

I agree with this and am quite sure I've handled it this way in the past.

I know I've never forced a coach to sub someone out (short of them having 6 players on the floor).