The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 09:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11
Send a message via AIM to ridavis13
Question

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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 09:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 744
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 09:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally posted by ridavis13
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?
The TO can be granted but A1 cannot return to the game.

Can anyone tell me why?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 09:49pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Lightbulb 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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 09:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Re: Grant the timeout.

Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
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
No disagreement there but A1 can't re-enter.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 10:01pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Re: Re: Grant the timeout.

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef


No disagreement there but A1 can't re-enter.
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 10:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Read the original play closer.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 10:07pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Question We must be looking at this differently.

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Read the original play closer.
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 10:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,988
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 10:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally posted by ref18
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 10:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,988
Talking

Whoo!! Hoo!!

I got a call right. I just proved all of those coaches wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 11:08pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Question Maybe there is a contradiction.

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef


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.
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 11:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,988
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 11:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 11, 2004, 11:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,988
I really misinterpreted that rule.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1