Substitution Question

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A technical foul would be an exception to the general rule, which is exactly what Hawkeye mentioned. However, all substitutes would not be able to enter. Only the a substitute who is going to attempt the first FT would allowed. If that happened to be the same individual who came to the table late during the time-out, so be it, but that is up to the coach or captain. The T does not create a totally new substitution opportunity.

Disagree. There is no basis for letting one player in and not the others. If it is a substitution opportunity, it is for every player who has reported.

The universal basis for all the rules disallowing subs (aside from the sit-a-tick requirement) is to keep the game moving....to not let subs delay the game. That's it. The primary purpose is the same whether it be before multiple FTs, stringing multiple subs to the table, or after a timeout.

The concept presented with the "unusual delay" case is that the subs are allowed because the game is delayed anyway. Likewise, the rule on allowing all subs in before 1st FT of 2 if there is an injured or DQ'd player further illustrates this concept.

When a situation occurs that allows one sub to enter that otherwise wouldn't have been allowed to enter, all subs are allowed in.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In order for that to happen, a new timing interval must be entered (a 20-second replacement period for an injured or DQ'd player or another charged time-out) or the ball must become live and then dead again. The clock running is not important in this case.

Really making stuff up today aren't you. I'd love to see ANY citation that backs that up.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

IIRC, we have a case somewhere regarding the beginning of the game and T that occurs before the jump. The case indicates that substitutions can be made before the FT's for the T without it being considered a change of the starters because the game has started. The fact that the T was called (or an infraction) has, in it self, move the game to a "new timing interval".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

IIRC, we have a case somewhere regarding the beginning of the game and T that occurs before the jump. The case indicates that substitutions can be made before the FT's for the T without it being considered a change of the starters because the game has started. The fact that the T was called (or an infraction) has, in it self, move the game to a "new timing interval".

But only the FT shooter is allowed to replace a starter and enter. Subs from both teams can't freely come in at that time after the T. They are still required to wait by a rule. The T only grants an exception to the one sub who is attempting the first FT (and maybe the 2nd).

The situation is similar here. There is a rule that places a restriction on all substitutes who don't report prior to the warning horn. They now cannot enter until the next substitution opportunity. The T would allow ONE player to be replaced by an exception and only if that entering sub is attempting that first FT.

The place where we lack clarity is what exactly constitutes the next substitution opportunity.

PS It is silly to state that I am making stuff up because you don't have any clear rules support for your position that "every new infraction creates a new point for substitution" either.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But only the FT shooter is allowed to replace a starter and enter. Subs from both teams can't freely come in at that time after the T. They are still required to wait by a rule. The T only grants an exception to the one sub who is attempting the first FT (and maybe the 2nd).

Show me ANYTHING that remotely supports that. Once the T is called, the game has already started...a foul is recorded in the book. The definition of a "starter" is no longer relevant.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The situation is similar here. There is a rule that places a restriction on all substitutes who don't report prior to the warning horn. They now cannot enter until the next substitution opportunity. The T would allow ONE player to be replaced by an exception and only if that entering sub is attempting that first FT.

The place where we lack clarity is what exactly constitutes the next substitution opportunity.

Once the timeout is over and another infraction is called, the ball is now dead not because of the timeout but because of the infraction. In this case, it is a violation. There is no violation that I know of where subs can't enter the game. Once the violation is "called", it will be as if the timeout never occured.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

PS It is silly to state that I am making stuff up because you don't have any clear rules support for your position that "every new infraction creates a new point for substitution" either.

Remeber the concept that if something is not detailed as illegal, that it is legal. I don't recall ever seeing anything saying a sub can't come in after a violation.

The substitution rule is obviously written assuming that there are no complicating situations....nothing unusual has occured.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Show me ANYTHING that remotely supports that. Once the T is called, the game has already started...a foul is recorded in the book. The definition of a "starter" is no longer relevant.

That is wrong, and I can prove it by quoting a rule for you as you have asked. The game begins when the ball first becomes live and that is required before either team can be granted a time-out.

Rule 6

SECTION 2 STARTING GAME/QUARTER

ART. 1 . . .

The game and each extra period begins when the ball becomes live
as specified in 6-1-2 for a jump ball, throw-in or free throw.

5-12-4. . .

A time-out shall not be granted until after the ball has become live
to start the game.

Sorry, but a team cannot substitute freely prior to the first FT attempt awarded for a pregame technical, and the starting line-up definitely still matters. Otherwise rule 3-2-2a would not say "unless...to attempt a technical-foul free throw."

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Once the timeout is over and another infraction is called, the ball is now dead not because of the timeout but because of the infraction. In this case, it is a violation. There is no violation that I know of where subs can't enter the game. Once the violation is "called", it will be as if the timeout never occured.

The ball remains dead following the time-out until it becomes live. Anything that happens during that same dead ball period doesn't change it to another dead ball period. There are a couple of things which can happen that will cause another timed interval and reset the sub restrictions, and we've already mentioned those--another time-out, an injury situation, or an unusual delay. The bottom line is that the dead ball remains a dead ball until it becomes live. That's simple.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Remeber the concept that if something is not detailed as illegal, that it is legal. I don't recall ever seeing anything saying a sub can't come in after a violation.

The substitution rule is obviously written assuming that there are no complicating situations....nothing unusual has occured.

The concept is fine, but in this case we have a rule prohibiting entry. The sub failed to report prior to the warning horn during the time-out. I see nothing that lifts that restriction during this dead ball period. Furthermore, a team warning for delay isn't a violation. It's just an administrative procedure. Says so in the definition provided in 4-47. In fact, only one of the four reasons for such a warning is a violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is wrong, and I can prove it by quoting a rule for you as you have asked. The game begins when the ball first becomes live and that is required before either team can be granted a time-out.

Rule 6

SECTION 2 STARTING GAME/QUARTER

ART. 1 . . .

The game and each extra period begins when the ball becomes live

as specified in 6-1-2 for a jump ball, throw-in or free throw.

5-12-4. . .

A time-out shall not be granted until after the ball has become live

to start the game.

Sorry, but a team cannot substitute freely prior to the first FT attempt awarded for a pregame technical, and the starting line-up definitely still matters. Otherwise rule 3-2-2a would not say "unless...to attempt a technical-foul free throw."

Concede the point about the game not "starting" by the literal reading of the rule. But, if that were really true, you couldn't have a foul before the game starts. So, there are really two points at which the game "starts". We may not technically call it a "start" but the contest has begun if penalties can be levied.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball remains dead following the time-out until it becomes live. Anything that happens during that same dead ball period doesn't change it to another dead ball period. There are a couple of things which can happen that will cause another timed interval and reset the sub restrictions, and we've already mentioned those--another time-out, an injury situation, or an unusual delay. The bottom line is that the dead ball remains a dead ball until it becomes live. That's simple.

Its only about the last thing to occur...administering things in the order in which they occur. No one is saying a dead ball is a live ball in any form...not sure where you're going with that. An opportunity to sub never requires a live ball to have occurred. If there is an infraction after the timeout, the infraction and anything that goes with it is all that would matter....as if the timeout never happened.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The concept is fine, but in this case we have a rule prohibiting entry. The sub failed to report prior to the warning horn during the time-out. I see nothing that lifts that restriction during this dead ball period. Furthermore, a team warning for delay isn't a violation. It's just an administrative procedure. Says so in the definition provided in 4-47. In fact, only one of the four reasons for such a warning is a violation.

We have a rule prohibiting entry if the report is during the last 15 seconds of a timeout. But that restriction ends at some point. And that point is when, after the timeout has ended, the next dead ball (after a live ball) or infraction occurs (even if the ball doesn't become live). It is no longer after a timeout...but after an infraction.

The delay warning is not just an administrative procedure, it is an infraction that is administered. If it were not an infraction, there would be nothing to adminster or record in the book.

It's pretty simple...what was the LAST event in the game. If it was the timeout, then the restriction still applies (but not all the time). If the last even in the game is not a timeout, then the restrictions are no longer in effect.