Denied Entry
 

Lets see if you think I got this right.

Following a time out and after the first warning horn I am counting the players on the court and can see 5 white team members and 4 red team members. Looking toward the red bench, I see a player standing on the court and the coach is looking at his elbow. Coach then says he has blood on him and I ask for a sub. At this point the white team coach sends a sub to the table. I allow the sub for the red team bleeder into the game, but deny entry to the white team sub because he presented himself after the warning horn.

I know there is a rule that says if a player is required by rule to be replaced, then any other entry into the game may enter also, but I believe this applies only to free throws. Also I felt that the bleeding red player had never actually entered the game at this point, and his sub should be classified as the 5th red team member and not as a sub.

Did I do it right by rule or not?

You did what I would have done. If the sub doesn’t report to the table prior to the first horn, no entry until after the ball has become live (or does the clock need to start?). The exception is for forced replacements (blood being one key example.)

I am allowing the new white player into the game.
It is my reasoning that one of the purposes of having a game is to have the kids on the floor.
Allowing White to substitute during this stoppage, or delay, has little difference to allowing a substitute in before the first of multiple free throws during an interim delay.

I allow the white team sub
 

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:p

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.

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).

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).

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? :p

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.

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

really not possible to have a TO between free throws?

Ranjo's point is that he gave you all the pertinent information in msg #1. As my JuCo supervisor likes to say "don't read into the question, just stick with the facts stated".

Why Not?
 

When I went to Officiating School one of the lessons we were taught was -when beibg asked to rule on something not specifically in the rules, ask yourself Why Not? IF you can't answer that question with a rule, allow it.

A long way of saying...use common sense.

If I'm allowing a sub for one team, I'll allow it for another.

Exactly my thoughts. Generally speaking the restrictions on when a sub must report are there to keep the game moving along. As long as you have to allow one substitution in this situation, why wouldn't you allow other subs as well? It seems very much like the situation where you have to replace a fouled out player before shooting free throws. You allow any number of subs then, since you've already had to have one.

At this point the following rules come into force:
3-3-6 . . . A player who is bleeding, has an open wound, has any amount of blood on his/her uniform, or has blood on his/her person, shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

10-5-3 . . . The head coach must replace or remove a disqualified/injured player, or player directed to leave the game, within 30 seconds when a substitute is available, while within the confines of his/her bench.

2-12-5 . . . Sound a warning signal at 20 seconds of the 30 seconds (maximum) permitted for replacing a disqualified or injured player, or for a player directed to leave the game.

And most likely this one too, despite the last part which would only apply if there was a player DQ:
2-8-4 . . . Notify the coach and request the timer to begin the replacement interval, and then notify the player on a disqualification.

What exactly is this 30 seconds?
It is a replacement interval, not a time-out.

In 2003-04 the NFHS addressed this in a POE. POE #5 that year was called "Substituting – Player Disqualifications," and uses language specific to disqualified players or players who have "fouled out",but it can also logically be applied to any case in which a player is directed to leave the game and must be replaced in such time. That is the case here.

What warning horn are you talking about? The one from the original time-out or the one from the 30-second replacement interval for the bleeding player? You will see below that either horn doesn't matter in this situation.

Did you instruct the timer to start a 30-second interval following the second horn from the time-out? Since you are asking if you did this right, I have to tell you that you didn't, if you failed to properly invoke the 30-second interval.

That is a good point about which to inquire. Since your situation did not involve FTs at all, I would say that the exception for 3-3-1c doesn't apply and that you need to focus on the rules pertaining to the 30-second replacement interval.

From the 2003-04 POE those are:
H.If a substitute from the non-offending team or a substitute from the offending team for someone other than the disqualified player reports to the scorer during the wait for the required substitute, they may enter the game. (3-3-1d) (Notice that the rule citation given is not the FT exception.)

I.A warning horn shall now be sounded at 20 seconds if the required substitute has not reported to the scorer’s table. This is an indication to the head coach that a substitute should report immediately (2-12-5). This warning horn does not have the same substitution restrictions as a warning horn for a time-out (3-3-1a); other substitutes from either team may still report and enter the game until the ball is about to become live. (3-3-2)


I don't agree with you there. The player with blood on him NEVER left the game, so he doesn't have to reenter at this point. He is already "actually entered." He is merely required by 10-1-9 to return to the floor at approximately the same time as the other four players. You said that he was on the court in front of the bench with his coach looking at his elbow, so he met that requirement.
How can you say that the sub is not a "sub"? :confused: Was he legally in the game when the time-out was granted? No. Was he legally in the game when the warning horn sounded during the time-out? No.
He is simply the required substitute for a bleeding player who was directed to leave the game following the time-out.


That's my opinion on how the rules should be applied in this case. I truly do hope that my writing it out helps you in some way. :) Of course, if you don't agree with it, then just ignore my post.

WOW! you spent a lot of time on this, and the rule references do help. To clarify one point, the red coach had another player into the game before I could get to the scorers table to start a 30 second clock.

Also, thanks for the option to accept or reject your post - Sometimes interpeting the rules is just like interpeting the law. Maybe we all need rules interpeters on retainer like companies do with lawyers.

Sorry, this "common sense" solution just won't work, due to the following:

OBITUARY: THE SAD PASSING OF COMMON SENSE

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim. Not many attended - his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

So, no more common sense. Back to the rule book.