JR, are you reading this to mean that the time out by A may be requested/granted after B's timeout? That is how I read it, but then again that is what I want it to say LOL...

Nope, I'm reading that to say that A has a choice of replacing A1 immediately(within 30 seconds of A1 leaving the floor) or using a TO to keep him in the game. B cannot be granted a TO until team A makes that choice. If the Team A choice was to replace A1, then A1 may not re-enter the game by team A using a further timeout. They have to wait until the next substitution opportunity, as per the rule BBRef quoted.

Forgive me for assuming that the officials handled B's TO properly. RiDavis did not say that the officials granted it in error. Unless told otherwise, I can only assume they handled it properly until we get to the point he is asking about.

Now, granting the TO is not a correctable error. As JR and I have tried to point out, A must immediatley decide whether to replace A1 or use a TO to keep him in the game. Since they didn't, he's not staying in my game. It's no different than allowing 6 players on the floor. Yes, it's partly the officials fault but that doesn't change the fact that A has a responsibility to follow the correct procedure.

There are many situations where officials screw up and NF interpretations do not exist that tell us what to do. But these are not correctable errors. IMHO, since A did not do as required, A1 cannot stay in the game.

I am still not convinced that A can't call the TO after B's TO. The portion of the case 3.3.1d doesn't mention that A must call it first, only that A1 may remain in the game if Team A requests and is granted a time-out. I would think that they would clarify that it must occur before B's TO due to the fact that B can't be granted a TO before the substitution, if that is indeed what they mean.

This is how I am looking at it.
 

I am with you on this one. Because there is no where it says that specifically that A cannot call a timeout at anytime to keep their player in the game. We are just going around and around over what we think. The rule is clear to me when a timeout can be granted and you have to have a sub before any timeout is granted. So what difference does it make if one calls a timeout and then the other team calls a timeout?

Peace

Re: This is how I am looking at it.
 

Because we cannot grant B's TO request until A1 is either replaced or Team A uses a TO to keep him in the game.

One of these two things must happen before B can be granted a TO.

Yes, that's what they mean. A1's status must be clarified before B's request can be granted.

OK OK OK, well I emailed our associate commissioner for the state of Wyoming....and like it or not he has the same interp as BBR, I don't know for the life of me how they both got some sort of misprint but they did....so to use the philosophy we all know here, he quote un quote pays the bill so it will be his way.....I am now on one side of the fence...that is if BBR and JR will allow it LOL

I'm villified!!
 

What a coincidence! We came up with the same story!! :p

Re: I'm villified!!
 

What are the chances that 2, and only 2 individuals in the whole world of bball officiating would come up with this story? :D:D

I guess we're the only two that got the memo. Of course, I forwarded it on to JR! ;)

and you tried to forward it on to the rest of us, but we wanted a second opinion, and MTD was no where to be seen ;)

You were just lucky!

With all the discussion on this subject we should all see the situation 2 or 3 times this week LOL :D

The player would be allowed back into the game. Yes the coaches were called onto the floor. But key word is the player was removed and B-1 wanted a time-out. Then A-1 was granted a time-out so the injured player will be allowed back into the game.

The point is B can't be granted a TO until A1 is replaced or A uses a TO to keep him in the game.

There is no interpretation that states A1 can remain in the game because the officials erroneously awarded B's TO.