9th grade boys. 2 point game with 2.5 min to go and A1 and B1 both have blood on their uniforms. Partner (Referee) whistles and orders both to bench. Turns out both are bleeding from scratches and no, I don't know how we missed that mugging. Coach A calls a full to buy A1 back in, last time out. Ref is handling the other substitutions during the time out. Resumption of play and A1 and B1 return to floor during the same time out, cleaned and patched and ready to play. Game continues and it is a 1 point game with less than 30 seconds to play and Coach B calls for his last time out. Coach A stays in the box but the top of his head is coming off asking why B has a time out remaining when he had a bleeder also. Partner and I make eye contact and telepath a quick oh, crap. Ref concurs with coach A, charges an ex post facto time out to B and orders resumption of play. Coach B is convinced he has been the victim of a drive-by, steps way out of the box, verbalizes way too much and Bang, two shots for A, three point lead, ball OoB and game over. Ref explained to me later that it made sense to him for other player to come back on a time out provided A1 was patched in time and just spaced on the rule. Obviously I let him down on knowledge of the rule and then not stepping in front of Coach B quick enough. Man did we feel bad, stupid and weak.

Oh, my!

Actually Coach B was right. Once the ball had become alive after B1 entered, B1 had become a legal player and you no longer can do anything about it. See casebook play 3.3.3SitB- it covers it. Please talk to your partner about this one- so that he doesn't do this again.

In addition, the B coach does not have to call a timeout to get his player back in the game sooner. He may not have felt it was necessary. However, once the team A coach called timeout, the B coach is free to bring his player back in the game using the timeout taken by A. Team B should not be penalized for the decisions of team A.

Oops!! Firedoc, take a look at 3-3-5.

This happened in a game last week. A-1 has blood. The coach seeing that the official is going to send A-1 off the floor sends A-6 to the table for A-1. The official signals A-6 into the game. A coach then sees that A-1 only has the skinned his knee and then takes a time out. We get ready to put the ball into play and A-1 is on the floor. The other official goes over and tells the coach that A-1 can’t return to the floor until the clock has started and A-6 needs to come back onto the floor. The coach isn’t to happy and wants to know why we didn’t tell him that before he took the time out (he never said anything other then time out). Well after the other team shoot two and got the ball and the coach had a seat next to A-1 the game went on.

So are you saying that both coaches get charged with a time-out in this situation?

I'm saying read 3-3-5 and ask yourself if Team A's TO buys B1 back into the game.

3-3-6 is even more accurate. It sreads like to get his own player back in, coach B will need to spend a TO. And the chances of this happening aren't that bad. Blood has a way of getting on more than one player. But be prepared to take some heat when you tell coach B that he has to burn a TO himself instead of "piggybacking" off of coach A.

You're right, wizard. 3-3-5 deals with an injured player and 3-3-6 deals with a bleeding player. But the result is the same. A's TO does NOT buy B1 back into the game.

Seems overly officious if you ask me. Let A6 come out, get A1 back in & play.

Coach A tried to save the timeout by sending A6 in for A1....thinking that A1 wouldn't have been ready anyway. He made that judement. He doesn't get the benefit of putting A1 back in after realizing that A1 was really OK. They either get to sub or take the timeout.

They did take the timeout, the way I read it. Which is why I would have let A1 back in.

...Actually Coach B was right. Once the ball had become alive after B1 entered, B1 had become a legal player and you no longer can do anything about it. See casebook play 3.3.3SitB- it covers it......

....In addition, the B coach does not have to call a timeout to get his player back in the game sooner. He may not have felt it was necessary. However, once the team A coach called timeout, the B coach is free to bring his player back in the game using the timeout taken by A. Team B should not be penalized for the decisions of team A.....

Thanks for the pointers to the casebook above and to the rulebook reference. In my research I found more info and and for others who would like further direction on requirement for dual time outs, Situation six, last year's (2002-2003) NFHS BB Rules Interpretions is definitive:"....if the officials direct both players to leave the game, both teams must call a TO to keep the respective players in the game....."

Except they didn't take the TO until after A1 had been subbed for. So, A1 now can't enter until the clock has run. IOW, the time to allow the "injury TO" has passed -- it's just a regular TO and all the regular TO and sbustitution rules apply.

If A had taken the TO before the sub, then A1 could return, or they could sub if A1 wasn't ready.

Sez who?

BOTH teams must be charged with a timeout for both players to remain in the game. When team A requested and was granted the timeout the calling official should have asked team B if they would like to take on also. If B says yes you would have two timeouts being timed at the same time. The point of the rule is to have it cost a team a time out to delay the game to have the player repaired and remain in the game.

Just like the saying says there’s no such thing as a free ride.

sez nobody anymore, see the thread part above.

Yeah Bob, I got that part.

Still OOO.

Obviously overly officious?

Yeah.

In philosophy, "OOO" is how we describe God: omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. (We throw in "wholly good" to round out the definition.)

Do you mean THE God, with a cap G or the notion of god, with a lower case g...or are they the same?

Dan, that's mighty thin ice you're skating on there.

How do you figure? It's an honest question

Okay, sorry, I mis-interpreted. I'm suspecting that Chuck means THE God, rather than the notion of god, and that they're not the same. At least, in my religious training the Omni's and "wholly good" are used only in reference to "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", who you are calling God with a capital G (which is a perfectly reasonable reference -- I'm not denigrating it). I know a little about Chuck's background, and I'm guessing he means that as well.

I like using OOO. It has connotations that are quite useful in both your usage and Chuck's. You can say it, "Oh, Oh, Oh." and it sounds very impressive, or you can say, "ooooo" to rhyme with Moooo. This has an awed overtone which denotes the elevation of the referent -- in the case of a referee who is OOO, it is spoken with sarcasm. Good call!

Unless the idea of God created the universe, it's refering to THE God. That definition is intended to be a description of a supernatural spirtual entity; not a mere idea. Although St. Anselm argued that the mere idea of God proved that there really is a God, I put little credence in his "proof".

If there really is a God, then they're clearly not the same thing. If there really is not a God, then it doesn't really matter.