Denied Entry

[cmathews]

I agree with Mick, and allow the sub. Another reason I can see is that white had a team on the floor based on what red had or didn't have on the floor. When red changes their team, it is only fair to allow white to "match up" by substituting. If the new red team player happens to be their offensive star, who was going to take a breather, then the white team should be allowed to sub in their defensive stopper who was on the bench for the same reason. IMHO

[deecee]

After reading the topic I thought this was going to be a meet and greet at a bar gone wrong. But alas no fun story of romping with the fairer of the sexes.

My 2cents -- let the sub in.

[BktBallRef]

If I allow a player in for one team, then I allow players from both.

EDIT: Case play

3.3.1 SITUATION B: A time-out is granted to Team A with play to resume by administration of a free throw. A6 reports to enter after the timer's warning signal has sounded. Since A6 has reported too late to enter, could he/she enter if: (a) either team is granted a time-out; (b) the resumption of play is delayed because a player is injured getting into position for the free throw; or (c) Team A is willing to “buy” A6's way into the game with a technical foul?

RULING: Permissible in (a) and (b), but not in (c).

[M&M Guy]

It looks like 3.3.1 SitB.(b) covers this.

Allow the white sub.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It looks like 3.3.1 SitB.(b) covers this.

Allow the white sub.

Yes sir. Unfortunately, the OP didn't get it right. Oh well, learn from it and nail it from now on.

3.3.1 SITUATION B: A time-out is granted to Team A with play to resume by administration of a free throw. A6 reports to enter after the timer's warning signal has sounded. Since A6 has reported too late to enter, could he/she enter if: (a) either team is granted a time-out; (b) the resumption of play is delayed because a player is injured getting into position for the free throw; or (c) Team A is willing to “buy” A6's way into the game with a technical foul? RULING: Permissible in (a) and (b), but not in (c).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

EDIT: Case play

Last edited by BktBallRef : Today at 07:19pm.

Now why would you do that when I posted the text of the case play at 07:14pm?

[Scrapper1]

Ok, here's a comment just to be nit-picky. Not saying I think we ought to make this distinction in real life, just throwin' it out there. . .

3-3-1c EXCEPTION: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter the game.

3.3.1 SITUATION B: A time-out is granted to Team A with play to resume by administration of a free throw. . .

Since we don't know how the game was to be resumed in the original situation, can we say for sure that the sub should've been allowed in?

[ranjo]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Ok, here's a comment just to be nit-picky. Not saying I think we ought to make this distinction in real life, just throwin' it out there. . .


Since we don't know how the game was to be resumed in the original situation, can we say for sure that the sub should've been allowed in?

As stated in my orginal posting, this occured following a time-out and not during a free throw. Thats why I denied entry.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by ranjo

As stated in my orginal posting, this occured following a time-out and not during a free throw.

It's not possible to have a time-out between free throws?