Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Mark,
Red Neck's question sounds alot like question #89 on the NFHS test.
#89. The official should not grant a player's request for a time-out until after an injured player has been replaced when a substitute is available.
True or False?
I put False sorta based on what you were "dancing around". 
|
The answer to NFHS #89 is True. Case book play 3.3.1SitD(c) refers to a bleeding player, but the rule is the same for injured players also. Note that this case book play refers to a player on the opposing team to the injured/bleeding player trying to call a TO before the injured/bleeding player is replaced. The TO request in this particular case is denied until the injured/bleeding player on the opposing team is substituted for.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 8th, 2004 at 06:32 AM]
|
I did in fact note that your case cited involved a player on the opposing team.
I was just wondering why I would have to replace injured player A1 with a sub...before team A's time-out...when a coach may decide to use this time-out to "buy" player A1 back into the game.
Are you saying the Coach must notify us prior to the time-out that he/she will be calling a time-out to keep the player in the game...thus not providing a sub for the injured/bleeding player?
Also, JR, what if you have two opposing injured/bleeding players and both coaches will buy their respective players back into the game with a time-out (3-3-6 Note)...except Coach B does not decide to do this untill the end of Coach A's time-out?
Could this end up being successive time-outs by opposing teams?