Consecutive timeout after injury

[cmathews]

Originally posted by 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."

JR, are you reading this to mean that the time out by A may be requested/granted after B's timeout? That is how I read it, but then again that is what I want it to say LOL...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews

JR, are you reading this to mean that the time out by A may be requested/granted after B's timeout? That is how I read it, but then again that is what I want it to say LOL...

Nope, I'm reading that to say that A has a choice of replacing A1 immediately(within 30 seconds of A1 leaving the floor) or using a TO to keep him in the game. B cannot be granted a TO until team A makes that choice. If the Team A choice was to replace A1, then A1 may not re-enter the game by team A using a further timeout. They have to wait until the next substitution opportunity, as per the rule BBRef quoted.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by 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).

Forgive me for assuming that the officials handled B's TO properly. RiDavis did not say that the officials granted it in error. Unless told otherwise, I can only assume they handled it properly until we get to the point he is asking about.

Now, granting the TO is not a correctable error. As JR and I have tried to point out, A must immediatley decide whether to replace A1 or use a TO to keep him in the game. Since they didn't, he's not staying in my game. It's no different than allowing 6 players on the floor. Yes, it's partly the officials fault but that doesn't change the fact that A has a responsibility to follow the correct procedure.

There are many situations where officials screw up and NF interpretations do not exist that tell us what to do. But these are not correctable errors. IMHO, since A did not do as required, A1 cannot stay in the game.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, I'm reading that to say that A has a choice of replacing A1 immediately(within 30 seconds of A1 leaving the floor) or using a TO to keep him in the game. B cannot be granted a TO until team A makes that choice. If the Team A choice was to replace A1, then A1 may not re-enter the game by team A using a further timeout. They have to wait until the next substitution opportunity, as per the rule BBRef quoted.

I am still not convinced that A can't call the TO after B's TO. The portion of the case 3.3.1d doesn't mention that A must call it first, only that A1 may remain in the game if Team A requests and is granted a time-out. I would think that they would clarify that it must occur before B's TO due to the fact that B can't be granted a TO before the substitution, if that is indeed what they mean.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cmathews


I am still not convinced that A can't call the TO after B's TO. The portion of the case 3.3.1d doesn't mention that A must call it first, only that A1 may remain in the game if Team A requests and is granted a time-out. I would think that they would clarify that it must occur before B's TO due to the fact that B can't be granted a TO before the substitution, if that is indeed what they mean.

I am with you on this one. Because there is no where it says that specifically that A cannot call a timeout at anytime to keep their player in the game. We are just going around and around over what we think. The rule is clear to me when a timeout can be granted and you have to have a sub before any timeout is granted. So what difference does it make if one calls a timeout and then the other team calls a timeout?

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
So what difference does it make if one calls a timeout and then the other team calls a timeout?

Because we cannot grant B's TO request until A1 is either replaced or Team A uses a TO to keep him in the game.

One of these two things must happen before B can be granted a TO.

Originally posted by cmathews
I am still not convinced that A can't call the TO after B's TO. The portion of the case 3.3.1d doesn't mention that A must call it first, only that A1 may remain in the game if Team A requests and is granted a time-out. I would think that they would clarify that it must occur before B's TO due to the fact that B can't be granted a TO before the substitution, if that is indeed what they mean.

Yes, that's what they mean. A1's status must be clarified before B's request can be granted.

[cmathews]

OK OK OK, well I emailed our associate commissioner for the state of Wyoming....and like it or not he has the same interp as BBR, I don't know for the life of me how they both got some sort of misprint but they did....so to use the philosophy we all know here, he quote un quote pays the bill so it will be his way.....I am now on one side of the fence...that is if BBR and JR will allow it LOL

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cmathews
OK OK OK, well I emailed our associate commissioner for the state of Wyoming....and like it or not he has the same interp as BBR, I don't know for the life of me how they both got some sort of misprint but they did....so to use the philosophy we all know here, he quote un quote pays the bill so it will be his way.....I am now on one side of the fence...that is if BBR and JR will allow it LOL

What a coincidence! We came up with the same story!!

[dblref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

What a coincidence! We came up with the same story!!

What are the chances that 2, and only 2 individuals in the whole world of bball officiating would come up with this story?

[BktBallRef]

I guess we're the only two that got the memo. Of course, I forwarded it on to JR!

[cmathews]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I guess we're the only two that got the memo. Of course, I forwarded it on to JR!

and you tried to forward it on to the rest of us, but we wanted a second opinion, and MTD was no where to be seen

[BktBallRef]

You were just lucky!

[cmathews]

With all the discussion on this subject we should all see the situation 2 or 3 times this week LOL

[Bchill24]

The player would be allowed back into the game. Yes the coaches were called onto the floor. But key word is the player was removed and B-1 wanted a time-out. Then A-1 was granted a time-out so the injured player will be allowed back into the game.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Bchill24
The player would be allowed back into the game. Yes the coaches were called onto the floor. But key word is the player was removed and B-1 wanted a time-out. Then A-1 was granted a time-out so the injured player will be allowed back into the game.

The point is B can't be granted a TO until A1 is replaced or A uses a TO to keep him in the game.

There is no interpretation that states A1 can remain in the game because the officials erroneously awarded B's TO.