Substitution Question
 

The warning horn with 15 seconds remaining in a time-out is sounded, then B6 reports to the scorer. The official informs the substitute that she will not be able to enter because she did not report prior to the warning horn. Therefore, B6 remains at the table. However, following the second horn signalling the end of the time-out Team A does not have the court ready to play as they have spilled water on the floor. So the question is now that the game has been delayed and the official has to charge Team A with a team delay of game warning, can B6 enter prior to the ball becoming live?
Does your opinion change if the delay is only ten seconds versus 90 seconds?

I say once a delay warning has to be issued, the player can enter. My understanding of the purpose of the rule is to prevent delay in returning to action by substituting late in a TO. However, once the delay has occurred and the official must report it, I'd have no problem letting her in.

This strikes me as an unclear part of the rule, so I'm interesting in your take...

I don't think B6 is allowed to come in unless the delay was due to an injury or unless Team A/B calls a timeout.

3.3.1 Situation B

Edit: Or until the clock properly runs.

Agreed. The purpose here isn't "delay", it's so a team can set the offense . defnese knowing who is playing on the other side.

How about: Or until the ball becomes live and another opportunity to substitute becomes available.

I'm going with no. Don't have my books, but unless there's an exception listed in that rule, or a case play that dictates otherwise, I don't think the delay reporting has any bearing on the fact that the substitute had not reported to the table before the warning horn to end the time-out.

The player may now enter.

Every new infraction creates a new point for substitution to occur unless they're expressly prohibited (e.g., before the first of two FTs).

A parallel would be a technical foul that is called after the timeout but before the ball is live. Any player from the bench may be subbed in to take the shots (assuming they were not just taken out of the game...required to sit 1 tick) whether they were there before the 15 second warning occurred or not.

For Coaches, And Fanboys, Without Casebooks ...
 

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).

I agree with that.

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.
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.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Could this situation argue for letting the subs in:

SITUATION 11: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting a two-point try and no goal is scored. Substitutes B6, B7 and A6 have properly reported. The game is delayed because of a repair problem with the basket prior to A1’s first attempt. Will the substitutes be allowed to enter because of this undue delay?
RULING: Because of the unusual delay, B6, B7 and A6 may enter. (3-3-1c)

IMO, probably not, since this substition situation is different than the OP's.

Why would the amount of time the delay incurs have a bearing on the situation?

Could it be used to support the argument to let the sub in? Certainly. Does it provide a conclusive ruling for the situation? I don't think so.

I don't believe that a clean up of some water on the court and the issuance of a team delay warning constitutes "an unusual delay," but that is JMO and it certainly could be construed as such. However, I would declare a delay to clean up blood on the court by game administration or a trainer to qualify. So it could go either way.

The whole reason that I posted this situation is that there isn't a clear cut answer and I hoped that some good discussion would ensue.

Perhaps next year we will get a case book play on this.

Proposal:
During a time-out B6 reports to the scorer after the warning horn is sounded and the official informs the substitute that he/she will not be able to enter until the next substitution opportunity. However, following the second horn to end the time-out, Team A fails to have the court ready to play due to having spilled water on the floor. After the official charges team warning for delay to Team A may B6 now enter the game?

See the post by Indianaref immediately prior to yours.

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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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 . . .

5-12-4. . .

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."

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.

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.