Intentional foul and sub?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Based on what? Is that actually a rule or an assumption? Seems like a logical way to do it, but I was wondering if that was an opinion, of the Fed.

Great question Bad Zebra. One thing that I know, for sure, is that it's an opinion shared by most veteran Forum members, but, of course, that really doesn't hold any NFHS weight.

Somewhere on the Forum, is the very rare situation of A6 being replaced by substitute A2 before the first free throw by A1 in a one and one situation. After hitting the rim, while jostling for position on a possible rebound (the ball eventually goes in the basket), A3 is injured, and the coach, and trainer, after being beckoned, and coming onto the court, decide that A3 must come out of the game. As a result of injuries, illness, and disqualifications, the only available substitute on the Team A bench is A6, who, because the clock never started (remember that the ball went in), has not yet sat out his "tick". The opinion expressed by most veteran Forum members was that A6, while not having sat out a requisite "tick", must be allowed to replace A3 because the rule that a team must play with five players "trumps" the "sit a tick" rule.

Maybe it's in Nevadaref's archives? Maybe it came to me in a dream? Maybe some veteran "esteemed" Forum members can help me out here?