3.1.1 Situation C: the hell with buy, how about gets?

[assignmentmaker]

3.1.1 Situation C: the hell with buy, how about gets?

This interpetation appears to have been crafted to address the specific instance of a willing buyer. What if, in response to being told 'no sale today', the coach of Team A becomes disgruntled, impolite, generally dispeptic, and earns a T. Can A6 enter the game after the administration of the technical foul shots? Yes, right?

[Nevadaref]

Your case cite is not in last season's book, so I must assume that it is from the new book for this coming year. We don't receive our new books until Oct. 1, so I don't know what the play is.

If you post it, I'll be glad to help you.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Your case cite is not in last season's book, so I must assume that it is from the new book for this coming year. We don't receive our new books until Oct. 1, so I don't know what the play is.

If you post it, I'll be glad to help you.

Part (c) is the issue.

[Nevadaref]

The answer is yes. A6 would be allowed to enter the game following the first FT or the second FT, if he remains in position at the table after having reported to the scorer.

The reason is that the ball has become live for the FT attempt. So following the attempt there is a new dead ball period for which the player was properly reported and in position. So he comes in.

Unless of course A6 had just left the game prior to the TO. In this case, rule 3-3-4 applies and the player must wait for the clock to have been started before he may legally enter.

*But I see your point. Although the case book play says the coach may not buy the player in with a T, essentially this is what happens because the kid is now legally allowed to enter.
Hmmmmmmm.... This seems goofy.

[assignmentmaker]

Nevada, thanks for the analysis. Makes sense to me. I seems worthwhile to note that while, in my scenario, the player gets in the game, it's at the expense of a direct T to the coach, instead of the 'Team T' that would seem to be the applicable penalty if one were to be allowed to buy the player in. I do hope this never happens to anybody . . .

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Part (c) is the issue.

Your discussion still doesn't fit my 3.1.1 in last year's casebook. What am I seeing wrong?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Your discussion still doesn't fit my 3.1.1 in last year's casebook. What am I seeing wrong?

Rainmaker, it's 3.3.1(c).