Newer Posters: You make the call!

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by tjones1

This situation happened following a time-out. The ball became live; however, the clock never started.

Does this matter?

Something to think about...

Well, I was doing both. It matters that the ball became live and then dead but it doesn't matter for this situation that the clock never started.

Every person that Team A's coach wants to shoot the free throw can.


Side note: As I said, this situation tripped me up. For some DA reason, I came up with the idea that following a time-out a tick must come off before subs can enter. Obviously, I was able to come up with a situation or two that proved this wrong and brought me to my senses...with the help of Illini_Ref. Anyways, I deserve a good slap on the back of the head for being a silly monkey for a couple hours today.

[tjones1]

Now lets change the situation around a little....

Team A requests and is granted a 30-second time-out. Team A will have the ball OOB for a designated throw-in. A9 reports to the table after the warning horn. A9 is not permitted to enter the game at that point, but stays at the table.

Following the time-out and before the official hands the ball to A4 (the thrower) B4 is charged with a technical foul for jaw-jacking.

Team A's head coach wants the free throws to be shot by the following:
A9 (as stated, currently checked-in at the bench)
A8 (who is on the bench)
A7 (who is on the bench)
A3 (player)
A2 (player)
A10 (who is on the bench)
A15 (who was heading to the table when the DOG was called, but hadn't checked-in at the time)

Is this situation any different than the first situation?

If so, who is eligible to shoot the free throws and why? Who isn't eligible to shoot the free throws and why?

[fiasco]

Yawn.....

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Yawn.....

Then quit reading this thread and posting.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Is this situation any different than the first situation?

No.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Then quit reading this thread and posting.

Well you keep adding "hints" and suggesting you're going to post some answer that's going to knock our socks off or something and then you go and add a whole other sitch into the mix. Why don't you just jump to what your point is?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Well you keep adding "hints" and suggesting you're going to post some answer that's going to knock our socks off or something and then you go and add a whole other sitch into the mix. Why don't you just jump to what your point is?

I posted the answer to the first situation... or were you to busy yawning to read that?

I never once suggested I was going to post an answer that was "going to knock your socks off".

The only point I'm making is I'm just trying to generate some discussion... if you don't want to participate, then don't. There were several posters, including you, that didn't come up with the correct answer. Maybe instead of yawning you should try to learn something.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tjones1

There were several posters, including you, that didn't come up with the correct answer.

I did give the correct answer*, or were you too busy smacking yourself on the back of the head to notice?





*In regards to your main question, who is eligible to attempt the FTs.


Now, the real question is, was this a hint, or am I leading you in the wrong direction?

Hmmmm????


??????

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Everyone is eligible. For both free throws.

Any player replaced for a free throw shooter cannot check back in until after the ball has become live following the second free throw or ensuing throw-in.

Originally Posted by fiasco

I did give the correct answer*, or were you too busy smacking yourself on the back of the head to notice?

*In regards to your main question, who is eligible to attempt the FTs.


Now, the real question is, was this a hint, or am I leading you in the wrong direction?

Hmmmm????


??????

Really? Because the "why"/explaination portion, as Snaq stated, is incorrect.

I wish I went to school where you did.

You know what.... not even worth it... Bob/Mick/Brad, kindly lock the thread up please. It's clear my efforts to generate discussion so that someone might learn something have failed... no need to continue.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Really? Because the "why"/explaination portion, as Snaq stated, is incorrect.

I wish I went to school where you did.

You know what.... not even worth it... Bob/Mick/Brad, kindly lock the thread up please. It's clear my efforts to generate discussion so that someone might learn something have failed... no need to continue.

Actually I did learn something.

But Snaq helped me out with that...

[tjones1]

Good, I'm glad you did.

[Adam]

You guys going to provide the popcorn, too, or just the entertainment?

[tjones1]

Nah, I'm not one who gets into pissing contests over nothing.

As I said, I tried to generate some situations and discussion for the newer folk and failed. No big deal, maybe someone got something out of it or maybe in the deep dark future when this thread is long gone and becomes part of the archives it will help someone.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Nah, I'm not one who gets into pissing contests over nothing.

FTR, I'm 335-0 in pissing contests. I attribute it to my....well....this is a family board.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Nah, I'm not one who gets into pissing contests over nothing.

As I said, I tried to generate some situations and discussion for the newer folk and failed. No big deal, maybe someone got something out of it or maybe in the deep dark future when this thread is long gone and becomes part of the archives it will help someone.

I don't see how you failed. We had several new folks learn something from this thread. That's a success, IMO.