Can't "Buy Him In"???
 

A1 enters game for A2. B1 shoots first of two free throws. Then A2 tries to return to the game to replace A3.

It seems correct that, according to 3-3-4, A2 should not be beckoned onto the court as a player. He's gotta "sit a tick", i.e. not enter until some time has run off the clock--("shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement")?

In that sitch, is it correct also to say that the coach cannot "buy him in" with a timeout? I know that can't be done with an improper wearing of uniform (3-3-5), but it can be done in an apparent injury situation (3-3-7). I'm trying to find phraseology deeming it either permissible or not permissible in the case of the original sitch.

Any help? Or am I on the right track?

Not allowed.

If the clock hasn't started since he subbed out, he can't come back in. How is a timeout any different than between 2 free throws in that scenario?

How does A1 come in before B1 shoots his 1st of 2? Shouldn't the sub wait until after the 1st free throw is shot?

Someone was directed to leave and A1 was already at the table.

Reminder To Newbies ...
 

.. but he doesn't have to play a tick.

Or a timeout was called prior to the two shots.

Or the FTs were for a technical foul.

Or A2 was injured.

Or the player who fouled B1 was disqualified (fouled out).

All of these possibilities open the opportunity to sub before the first FT.

Thanks!

He may want to scratch a tick though.

MTD, Sr.

That's Why It's Called Lyme Disease ...
 

... this he says to a guy who lives in a state where they "discovered" Lyme Disease (Lyme, Connecticut). Here in the Constitution State we don't take kindly to people joking about ticks.

No, it can't, not after A1 enters the game for A2, as you stated in the OP.

Not what was stated in the OP.

How is this not the same?