View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:13am
billyu2 billyu2 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Agree 100% on this interpretation. I'm still not convinced on the injured player, but I'm still open to other's opinions, hopefully backed by citations.
Remember originally if an injured player needed attention by coach/trainer the player had to come out of the game. There was no provision for a
time-out(s) to get the player ready. Then it was added to the rule the coach could be granted "a time-out"... under the condition the injured/bleeding player "must be ready by the end of the time-out." There was no indication that "time-outs" could be used. No doubt there is an element of contradiction between the two rules; but the interpretation I remember is what I said before: two different situations but one intent not to have a lengthy delay getting a player back into the game or allowing a player to shoot crucial free throws after the end of the 4th qtr./OT
Reply With Quote