Disqualification Substitutes ...

[bob jenkins]

Just ask the sub, "Are you coming in for xx?"

The, "Coach, I know you know, but that was 5 on xx" and beckon the sub.

Takes 3 seconds total.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Just ask the sub, "Are you coming in for xx?"

So talk to the substitutes on the X before I inform the coach?

Every single time there are substitutes on the X before I report the foul?

Just on the slight chance the the head coach might give me some attitude?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One thing that I hate about disqualifications ...

Also hate it when the player, coach, and table (but not the official) all realize it's the fifth foul on a player and just treat it like a "normal" substitution, without informing the official that a player has been disqualified.

They don't realize that the official informing the head coach is mandated by rule to inform the head coach.

I've also has a few partners who have allowed this (not informing the head coach) to happen when they know it's the player's fifth foul.

[Raymond]

Is there something controversial about that ruling in Connecticut?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

That ruling has never, as far as I know, been in doubt. It's not the same as the test question that has / had you so worked up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That ruling has never, as far as I know, been in doubt. It's not the same as the test question that ... had you so worked up.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

26) B-1 fouls A-1, committing their fifth personal foul. While waiting for B-1’s replacement, A-6 and A-7 approach the table to enter the game. The official denies their entry, stating that A-6 and A-7 must wait and enter with B-1’s replacement. Was the official correct?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Play #4: In the 4th quarter, A2 is called for their 5th personal foul and is disqualified from the game. B6 and B7 were already at the table when the foul was called. After the official beckons A6 in to replace A2, they tell B6 and B7 they must remain at the table until after the first free throw. Is the official correct?

There's an interpretation difference between "approach(ing) the table" and "already at the table"?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's an interpretation difference between "approach(ing) the table" and "already at the table"?

bob jenkins: Now I see another difference, the "first free throw" restriction.

[BillyMac]

Bottom line: Assuming the coach takes the entirety of his allotted fifteen seconds to replace the disqualified player, what substitutes are allowed, or not allowed, to enter during that fifteen second time frame before the required replacement?

Nobody? Those on the X? Those on the way to the X?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There's an interpretation difference between "approach(ing) the table" and "already at the table"?

You seem to be focused too much on the action of Team B (with the subs) and not the actions of Team A (with the DQ player).

In both the test question and play#4, B has playes at the table before A has the replacement ready. In the test question, the official makes those players wait until the replacement is ready. In play #4, the officil makes the players wait even BEYOND the replacement until the next FT (the normal opportunity to substitute).

The issue is: When can the subs enter? Before the official notifies the player / coach and starts the timer? (We all agree this is NO, I think). While we are waiting for the replacement to come to the table? (the controversy). Along with the replacement after s/he has reported? (we all agree this is YES, I think) After the first FT? (question #4 and we all agree this is NO, I think).

IAABO m9ight also make some distinction between subs who are at the table before the replacement or those who are on their way, or those who come a bit later. For me, I'm treating it just as we do during most sub situations -- here, that generally means allowing the sub. The play is already stopped / delayed, so get all the subs in and (potentially) avoid delaying the game again at the next clock stoppage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In both the test question and play#4, B has players at the table before A has the replacement ready. In the test question, the official makes those players wait until the replacement is ready. In play #4, the official makes the players wait even BEYOND the replacement until the next FT (the normal opportunity to substitute). The issue is: When can the subs enter? Before the official notifies the player/coach and starts the timer? (We all agree this is NO, I think). While we are waiting for the replacement to come to the table? (the controversy). Along with the replacement after s/he has reported? (we all agree this is YES, I think). After the first FT? (question #4 and we all agree this is NO, I think). IAABO might also make some distinction between subs who are at the table before the replacement or those who are on their way, or those who come a bit later. For me, I'm treating it just as we do during most sub situations, here, that generally means allowing the sub. The play is already stopped/delayed, so get all the subs in and (potentially) avoid delaying the game again at the next clock stoppage.

A very well thought out, rational, and wise interpretation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Is there something controversial about that ruling in Connecticut?

Our three local interpreters, going back over forty years, before our present interpreter, all advised us to "take care of business" before we allowed any substitutes into the game (and granted any timeouts).

Many of our veterans got this question wrong on our IAABO Refresher Exam.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our three local interpreters, going back over forty years, before our present interpreter, all advised us to "take care of business" before we allowed any substitutes into the game (and granted any timeouts).

Many of our veterans got this question wrong on our IAABO Refresher Exam.

And the play you just quoted that I responded to, how does that fall out of line with taking care of business and then allowing other subs?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Play #4: In the 4th quarter, A2 is called for their 5th personal foul
and is disqualified from the game. B6 and B7 were already at the
table when the foul was called. After the official beckons A6 in to
replace A2, they tell B6 and B7 they must remain at the table until
after the first free throw. Is the official, correct?
Answer: No, the official is not correct. If a disqualified player
needs to be replaced, this is an opportunity for both teams to
substitute and any player may enter the game. (IAABO Rules
Guide 3:3:1 Exception)

Originally Posted by Raymond

And the play you just quoted that I responded to, how does that fall out of line with taking care of business and then allowing other subs?

Play #4 (possibly just an IAABO interpretation) interpretation allows substitutes to enter before the replacement for the disqualified player is beckoned and replaced, the final part of taking care of business

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Play #4 (possibly just an IAABO interpretation) interpretation allows substitutes to enter before the replacement for the disqualified player is beckoned and replaced, the final part of taking care of business

Where did you post the interpretation that says the subs can come in before?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

The 2024-25 interpretation definitely does not say anything about BEFORE.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk