With 9 seconds remaining in the game team A's star player is injured. He has to come out of the game because the coach or trainer is beckoned onto the floor. After the player is removed, Team B asked for a timeout and it is granted. Team A then requested a time to buy their star player back into the game. The timeout is not granted to team A. Should A have been granted a timeout to buy their star player back into the game? Does injury change how we administer consecutive timeouts?

Yes. Consecutive time-outs can be granted in this situation, if it is to "buy" a player back into the game who has left for blood or bodily injury.

The TO can be granted but A1 cannot return to the game.

Can anyone tell me why? :)

Grant the timeout.
 

The only time this would be an issue, would be before an extra period starts. But this was not that situation. A has a right to that timeout.

Peace

Re: Grant the timeout.
 

No disagreement there but A1 can't re-enter.

Re: Re: Grant the timeout.
 

They can't if the were not allowed a timeout. But I see no reason A1 could not come back in if they were given one. Is there not a casebook play on this situation?

Peace

Read the original play closer.

We must be looking at this differently.
 

Maybe we are debating different things. If the A timeout is not given, no the player cannot come back into the game. But if A is granted a timeout, why would A1 not be able to come back in as long as the player is ready after the timeout is over? Yes, as it stands A1 cannot come into the game, but why could they not if they were granted a timeout?

Peace

the key words are:

"after the origional player is removed"

Once a player has been removed, he cannot re-enter until the clock has properly started. No matter how many time outs you call.

Correct.

B's request for a TO cannot be granted until A1 is replaced.

A6 enters the game.

A can be granted a TO after B's TO but A1 cannot re-enter until time lapses from the clock.

Whoo!! Hoo!!

I got a call right. I just proved all of those coaches wrong. :D

Maybe there is a contradiction.
 

Why is this different than what 3-3-5 says? And 3.3.5 SITUATION B covers this as well, but it is not exactly the situation? I thought the NF when they put this in the rulebook, they wanted A in this case to use a timeout for that very purpose? Why is this any different? Because you cannot grant a timeout until a player is replaced as 5-8-3 states, but why could A not call a timeout and have their player come back into the game?

Peace

I believe that calling the time out would satisfy the portion of the rules that require a substitute, because after calling the TO, the player may now play and a substitute is no longer required.

This play is different from the case play because a sub has gone into the game for A1 in our play.

In order for A1 to stay in the game, he cannot be replaced in the game by a sub.

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

If he was ready to return at the end of that TO, he could return.

If he wasn't ready, they could use a successive TO.

But in the original play, he was replaced, B used a TO, and then A requested a TO. They can have the TO but A1 can't re-enter until time has lapsed from the clock, because he's already been replaced.

I really misinterpreted that rule.