Illegal substitution?
 

A1 thru A5 is on the floor. A6 is waiting at the Table. A coach calls timeout. Referee says sub your in, timeout A coach full timeout start it. On resumption of play A1 thru A5 are on the floor. Before the ball is administered the B coach says #30 (A6) isn't on the floor. What do we have?

Whoever A6 went in for should be out of the game and needs to "sit a tick". A6 is not required to be in the game.

Pick A Card, Any Card ...
 

A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game, shall not re-enter (with rare exceptions) before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his, or her, replacement. In other words, a player who has been replaced must sit a tick of the clock, however, a player doesn't have to play a tick of the clock.

A6 was beckoned (Referee says sub your in) and therefor, became a player.

A6 doesn't have to play a tick, but the player he replaced must sit a tick.

Good luck trying to figure out who A6 replaced.

A6 does not have to play at this point. Player can be subbed in, and then out again with no time off the clock. But A5 cannot return until the clock has been properly started and time run off. Any other eligible player on the bench can come in to replace A6, as long as he reported to the table before the first horn, then play on.

Can you supply rule on that. This is a big argument in our chapter meeting right now.

Details, Details, Details ...
 

Hold on partner. Where does it say that A6 replaced A5? It could have been A1, A2, A3, A4, or A5.

So would you prevent anything by telling A5 Can not be in the game. Or is it a technical foul for an illegal player?

Matthew 7:7 ...
 

3-3-4: A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall
not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been
started properly following his/her replacement.

Assume ???
 

Why do assume it's A5? It could have been A1, A2, A3, A4, or A5.

There isn't a rule that says A6 doesn't have to play. There doesn't need to be a rule. There also isn't a rule that says A6 must play....because it isn't required.

What is required is that a player that is replaced can't return.

But, as has been said, if no player had yet left the game, there is no way you can tell who was supposed to have left.

Lets say A5 was the replaced player

Loophole ...
 

Hold onto your horses BillyMac.

Does the substitute become a player when he's beckoned, or when he enters the court?

Does the original post state that A6 entered the court? I don't think so.

3-3-3: A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court.
If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live.
A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or
after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

Not An Unimportant Detail ...
 

Easy to say here on the Forum. Good luck trying to figure it out in a real game.

An official who has no business beckoning a sub. Call the timeout, let A do what they want to do prior to the warning horn.

I'd have no problem with A1 through A5 in the game after the timeout.

Your question is the argument. What makes it a legal entry. Because if the beckoning doesn't do it in this situation, then technically they would have to check in again before the 15 second horn. Even then if you would check in before the horn can the coach resend that sub and leave the original player in the game?

The rule is that a replaced player cannot return until the clock has run.

For many years now, players do not have to identify the player they are replacing when they check in. So in reality, there's no way to identify the player who must return. IOW, there's nothing you can do here except ignore B Coach's attempt at a cheap technical foul against A.

This is the kind of situation that's interesting to talk about, along with questions like "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."

In the real world, though, a team can call back a sub that's reported, so whether A6 comes into the game or not, the official has nothing to do.

So when does a player become a legal player. Why check in at all? I understand what your saying and I had nothing on this play either but there is a legitimate question here. Not as silly as you make it seem.

If A6 did not enter the court he did not become a player. Whatever player he reported for still is a player. A6 has reported. He could go in at end of timeout without reporting again. It is the same thing as him being at the table and being pulled back by his coach. Horn can be blown, we can say your in but until he enters he can be pulled back.

That's specifically covered in the rule book. Have a look. I'm surprised that an entire association would miss this.

I and we did look at it. Rule 3.3.3 but it is Not clear when he becomes a legal player. If you want to give rules in your answer I will gladly listen to you.

I've edited your post. Consider this your only warning. We don't name call around here.

What is not clear about 3-3-3?

3-3-3: A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court. If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live. A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

3-3-3. Sub becomes a player when he legally enters court. Player becomes bench personnel when his substitute becomes player or coach notified he DQed.

If you beckon him AND he enters, he is a player.

I don't normally talk that way but you struck a nerve. For you to talk to people as if there inferior does not make a productive forum. I would think we would all want a rules based open discussion. But that's just me.

"When he/she legally enters the court". Would being beckoned on the floor not make her legally on the floor?

Again, this is not the word you want.

Sorry they're

Your initial post doesn't indicate that you or your association did any rules-based work. Why didn't you post a rule citation or two when you asked your question?

Since you're granting a timeout, there's no sub in the game. Since the player reported before the first warning horn, s/he can come in...or not...for any of the 5 players already on the floor.

EVEN IF the official beckoned in the sub after granting the timeout, I'd argue that the sub really isn't "in the game" and the official shouldn't be doing that.

No. It's during a timeout.

If you post his deleted post again, you're getting suspended.

You are out of line, Rich. I can post a humorous diction correction anytime I wish.

3-3-2. Sub shall remain outside the boundary until being beckoned, whereupon he shall ENTER...

Beckoning is one thing. Entering is another. It is stepping inbounds.

Ok I agree with you. I'm just looking for a rule that clarifies when a player becomes legal. Some could argue the contrary that If the player is beckoned on the floor that she is a legal player which would make the other player bench personal and would have to sit a tick. I just want to provide my chapter with proof of the rule. I apologize for my earlier comment. I should not have done that.

His post was deleted for being against the rules here.

I wouldn't let him call you a name, either. I'm certainly not going to let him call *me* a name.

Quoting that deleted post just isn't going to happen.

You've granted a timeout. What are the rules on substituting during a timeout? They apply as soon as the timeout is granted.

(I'll let you find those. )

I've apologized for my comment sir. I apologize to all that read it. It was wrong of me.

I don't see anything that he said that should have struck a nerve. It was a bit curt, but if that hit a nerve, your nerves are a bit too close to the surface.

I was also surprised an entire association would miss this in a discussion. The rule is right there and pretty clear. No, "enters the court" doesn't happen during a timeout, no one is on the court at that point until the timeout is over.

Not true. Players remain players during time-outs. If a substitute reports during a time-out and then subsequently enters the inbounds area, he has met the rule requirements to become a player and replace one of the five players.

If you beckon him and he steps inbounds he becomes a player. At that moment another player becomes bench personnel and cannot reenter before clock runs. If you grant a timeout before he enters he hasn't become a player yet.

I will look that up now. Thank you for directing me in a direction. I will get back to you with an answer.

Someone had already posted the rule with specific wording that tells you exactly when A6 becomes a player.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I'm not concerned with the name-calling. I'm bothered that you deleted my post and the quoted point of it. It was something that he could have learned from. You could have simply blocked out the name that he called you without nixing the rest of my post. Instead you were lazy and opted to delete the whole thing. His post was right about one thing--this isn't Rich.com.

What were the specific words? That is what I'm looking for. Of it was ignored it was not with intent.

I agree players remain players during timeouts. However, I do not agree that bench personnel can become players during the timeout. When the timeout is over and they enter the court I believe they become a player. Part of the Court during timeouts is called the timeout area. I also believe the player who reports during the timeout, runs back to huddle on floor can be withdrawn and player he was going to replace can stay in.

Rule3-3-4
A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement.

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.

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.

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.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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)

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.

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.

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."

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....

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.

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.

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.

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

Not Beckoned ...
 

"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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

Adam and I were discussing regular substitution. Timeout wasn't involved in what we were talking about.

Things may have changed enough he doesn't want to. I can't see a way to force it.

I'm looking at it this way. If he refuses top identify which player was to be subbed out, and A6 follows his coach's lead, are you prepared to follow through with a technical foul? I don't mind Ts, and I don't mind the paper work that comes with them, but this would be a tough sell around here.

You might be right, the coach would likely comply, so my guideline is theoretical.

Even if he complied, then took the time to complain to my assigner, I think I'd lose that battle.

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

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

Absolutely!...my daughter also would have liked me to leave. She doesn't appreciate the free driving lessons I offer...constantly...,:D

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

Buy plenty of insurance....get a stress test to be sure your heart can handle it...:p

Almost forgot most important thing...when it comes time to practice parking....send her w mom or grandparents....

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).

Suppose A1-5 are in game. A6 is at table but doesn't provide a number of player he replacing. Ball out of bounds. You beckon A6 in. He crosses the boundary and enters court. Walks to end line for the throw in. A3 now mouths off to point you call a T on him. What do rules say you do at this point?

What's It Gonna Be Boy (Meatloaf, 1977) ...
 

A3 bench personnel: Player technical and indirect technical to head coach.

A3 player: Player technical.

It makes a difference whether, or not, he's been replaced by a substitute.

If A6 (or the coach) doesn't tell, signal or motion to A3, he's still a player in my book.

I'm just doing a player T, quite frankly, rather than apply the indirect T to the coach. If the situation is unclear, I'm going to err on the side of caution. The case play you referenced earlier applies to a fight, but a fight is sufficiently rare and the penalties are intentionally harsh that I'm not going to apply the case play to any other situation.

Wrong again. Leaving the court is not a requirement for ceasing to be a player.
The rule very clearly states when the player becomes bench personnel.

You're right, but are you going to enforce 3-3-4 in this case. Remember, you have no idea who A6 was coming in for. No one does, since it was never announced before he was recalled by his coach.

I meant to respond to this earlier and got distracted by life.

Nothing you said refutes my statement above. No one has entered the court, in fact, 5 players have left the court. What is the material error here?

Player Becomes Bench Personnel ...
 

4-34-3: A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court.
If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live.
A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or
after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

Not sure how long you've been officiating, but when I started subs reporting to the table had to state their own number plus the number of the player being replaced. This requirement was dropped a few years into my officiating time.
This made such situations clearer and enforcement simple. Sadly the NFHS opted to be less precise.

The guiding principle has to be that there are always five players, other than during an intermission or if fewer are eligible. So when a sub enters and becomes a player one of the previous five ceases to be. Yes, I would enforce that rule. I would charge a technical foul if needed.