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.

Does not seem that simple.
 

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

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.

Does it matter who calls the timeout?
 

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 <b><u>injured player(s)</b></u> 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

Re: Does it matter who calls the timeout?
 

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.

It does not categorize that issue.
 

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

Injured player Consecutive timeouts
 

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?

Re: Re: Does it matter who calls the timeout?
 

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?

Re: Injured player Consecutive timeouts
 

The timeout for B should not have been granted.

Re: Re: Re: Does it matter who calls the timeout?
 

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]

Re: It does not categorize that issue.
 

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! :p

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.

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it matter who calls the timeout?
 

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...

Casebook play 3.3.1SitD(c) seems close enough- <i>"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."</i>

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.

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.

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.

This is how I am looking at it.
 

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

Re: This is how I am looking at it.
 

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.

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

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

I'm villified!!
 

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

Re: I'm villified!!
 

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

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 ;)

You were just lucky!

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

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.