Consecutive timeout after injury

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Once he leaves the floor, and before a sub enters for him, Team A would have to use a TO.

This is not about right or wrong for me. But if you cannot call a timeout without a replacement (does not specify what team under 5-8-3b), then would that not come under all situations? Because an injured player has to be replaced before a timeout is called, why does it matter who calls the first timeout?

I am also asking this, because I thought the NF put on their website a play similar to this and said they could be substituted. Especially when there was confusion over when and who the timeout and if they could come back into the game.

I can see where you say what you are saying, but it seems like that is not clear from the straight rule. Because the rules makes a distiction as to what an injured player can do and when they can come back in the game. But then they say a replaced player cannot come back in until the clock runs. But I thought the NF had this covered specifically in the casebook and they apparantly did not.

Just asking.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

5-8-3b
Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:
Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:
The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

Summary
A timeout cannot be awarded until the player is replaced.

3-3-5
A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

Summary
Team A can use a TO before replacing the injured player. The player does not have to be substituted for if HIS team requests a TO and he is ready to play when the TO is over.

Combine the two rules and we see that Team A can be granted a TO before A1 has been replaced but Team B cannot.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
5-8-3b
Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:
Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:
The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

Summary
A timeout cannot be awarded until the player is replaced.

I agree where you are coming from, but if you use that logic as well, you could say that the team that calls a timeout for that purpose, could not bring back that player as well. Let us take B calling a timeout out of this situation, they still have to replace the player before a timeout is granted right? So what difference does it make if B calls a timeout and A has replaced the injured player before the timeout can be granted?

And in 5-8-3 says,

"Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out such request being granted only when:"

b says,

"The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s) or a player directed to leave the game is pending and a substitute(s) is availible and required."

Now if 5-8-3b says you cannot grant one until the sub as been made availible, why is that any different if B calls a timeout?

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I agree where you are coming from, but if you use that logic as well, you could say that the team that calls a timeout for that purpose, could not bring back that player as well. Let us take B calling a timeout out of this situation, they still have to replace the player before a timeout is granted right?

No, Team A does not have to replace A1 before they use a TO. That's the p[urpose of the rule change.

They can replace him or they can use a TO to keep him in the game.

He must be replaced or his team must use a TO before Team B can use a TO.

[JRutledge]

I do not see any rule justification other than you saying it. Because it does not say that the team of an injured player is excempt from replacing their player before calling a timeout. Actually there is no distiction made. It says that the injured player has to be replaced before the timeout can be granted. So it seems to leave it up to an interpretation.

Peace

[ridavis13]

In the original question a sub did not replace the injured player. Team B called a timeout, after their timeout expired, Team A called a timeout to get their star back in the game. Timeout was not granted. Is this correct?

[cmathews]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

No, Team A does not have to replace A1 before they use a TO. That's the p[urpose of the rule change.

They can replace him or they can use a TO to keep him in the game.

He must be replaced or his team must use a TO before Team B can use a TO.

BBR, I know that here we often have a hard time determining what the federation was thinking. With that in mind don't you think that the intent of this rule is just to make A burn a TO to get A1 back in the game, no matter when they have to use it? Or do you think they intend for B to be allowed to keep A1 out of the game by requesting a TO before A can? How would you handle this situation, while B has requested TO, you are waiting for A6 to report, A sees what is happening and requests a TO before A6 reports, do you grant their TO at this time and tell coach B nice try? IMHO I think the fed just intended A to burn a TO so if B calls one first then A burns one A1 can come back in, I do agree though that if that is what they intended they need a specific case for it, does anyone have a case book handy from last year, and was it addressed more clearly in there?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ridavis13
In the original question a sub did not replace the injured player. Team B called a timeout, after their timeout expired, Team A called a timeout to get their star back in the game. Timeout was not granted. Is this correct?

The timeout for B should not have been granted.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cmathews
IMHO I think the fed just intended A to burn a TO so if B calls one first then A burns one A1 can come back in,

I don't think so. B cannot be granted a timeout until A1 is replaced or A uses a timeout and keeps him in the game.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 12th, 2004 at 09:39 AM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I do not see any rule justification other than you saying it. Because it does not say that the team of an injured player is excempt from replacing their player before calling a timeout. Actually there is no distiction made. It says that the injured player has to be replaced before the timeout can be granted. So it seems to leave it up to an interpretation.

Peace

Well, Bob said it to. Does that help you? As far as rules go, I've quoted the correct rules. If you don't believe me, give Bob a call.

Let's see who's right!

[ridavis13]

The word replaced was not used in the original question. Player was removed from the floor. Then time out called by team B. I agree that a timeout should not have been granted to Team B, but since it was, do you penalize Team A by not allowing their star to return to a close game in the final seconds, if he is ready to play after the TO?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ridavis13
The word replaced was not used in the original question. Player was removed from the floor. Then time out called by team B. I agree that a timeout should not have been granted to Team B, but since it was, do you penalize Team A by not allowing their star to return to a close game in the final seconds, if he is ready to play after the TO?

You're right, it wasn't. By rule, the TO cannot be granted until he is replaced. Therefore, when you stated B had been granted a TO, I did not assume the officials did it in error. You didn't say it was erroneously granted.

This isn't a correctable error. Since Team A did not use a TO to keep the player in the game, by rule, he can't return.

[nine01c]

Although it says A1 has been removed (gone to the bench), it does not say he was replaced (you are assuming). By rule, A1 must be replaced (within 30 secs) before anything else happens. Team A either gets a sub in, OR it may request a Time Out (A1 may return to game if ready after the TO). If the referee grants Team B a TO before A1 is replaced (enters court), it is improper procedure. If the ref messes up and does grant this TO to B, then I believe Team A can still be granted a TO to get A1 ready to play (since he wasn't properly subbed for yet). In any case, consecutive Time Outs may always be granted before the expiration of regulation time.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I don't think so. B cannot be granted a timeout until A1 is replaced or A uses a timeout and keeps him in the game.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 12th, 2004 at 09:39 AM]

This is why I think the intent was just to make A burn a TO. Where does it say that it is ok to grant the TO to A before the player directed to leave the game is replaced? 3-3-5&6 both say unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to..... but no where does it say that you can set aside the provision that the substitution be completed before a TO is granted. With this in mind I think the intent is to set aside the substitution requirement, and if that is the intent then I don't think it is a big stretch to also apply it to the situation where B calls TO first...

[Jurassic Referee]

Casebook play 3.3.1SitD(c) seems close enough- "the time-out by B3 cannot be honored until the substitute for A1 has properly reported and entered.Once the time out is granted, all substitutes may enter. A1 may remain in the game if team A requests and is granted a time-out."