NFHS Preseason Basketball Guide 04-05

Includes a short article discussing the clarification of Rule 3-3-6 Note
If players from both teams are directed to leave the gamebecause of injury/blood, both teams must request and be granted a time-out in order to keep each player in the game.

The guide goes on to say "the time-outs are charged immediately and are run concurrently ... NOT ONE AFTER THE OTHER ... players may return immediately following the timeoutS.

Okay.

So what if one team request a full time-out for their player and the other coach requests a 30 second time-out to run concurrently/at the same time with the opponents full time-out. Is that okay or do I need to impose upon the coaches that both time-outs need to be the same length? If they don't need to be the same length, one coach is getting a better deal. However, I don't see anything to stop the quick thinking coach from only burning a 30 yet getting the benefit of his opponent's full time-out.

That's a nightmare waiting to happen.

So if you have two opponents go down, you have to go to both coaches and ask if they want to use a TO right now for the injured player?

If you don't do that, then what if one coach doesn't realize that he has to request the TO until after the other team's TO is up. Can the coach just say, "My kid's ready to go. Charge me for the TO, and we'll just say I already used it."?

If two opponents are instructed to leave for blood/injury, the official is to get confirmation of time-outs for both teams or, if only one wants a time-out, he is to get a substitute before the opponent's time-out is administered.

But you are right; if not properly administered, I can see exactly what you have stated occurring regularly, "my guy is ready to go!"

To get a player back in from blood/injury you have to use a full time out, if one is not available then you can use a 30.. so this takes care of the question which one to use..they don't have a choice....and as long as you follow correct procedure about putting in a sub if the other team does not want to re-enter his player, everything will be fine...if he is ready after the timeout he still has to wait till a tick goes off the clock..

i think this was my question a couple weeks ago, glad it got answered, simultaneous timeouts....not one after the other...

what rule says you have to use a full timeout??

The blood rule timeout and the problems that can surface with the new NFHS rule (which is identical to the current NCAA Men's/Women's rule) has been discussed in an earlier thread.

And once again I propose that both the NFHS and the NCAA just do away with the timeout rule. The easiest and fairest way to handle the blood problem is for the player involved to leave the game until the next opportunity to return to the game.

I know that people will say: How can you take a team's star player out of the game when the game is on the line and only seconds left on the clock? That argument does not hold water. Most people who read this forum know that I officiate between 350 and 400 basketball games a year. I would guess that I have only two or three blood rule situations a year. And I believe that every official who reads this forum were to track the number of blood rule situations that they have per year, the results would be similar to mine. The fact is that blood rule situations are very rare and to put complicated rules into the game to cover a very rare situation is absolute nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

IMHO, It's not that complicated. Far less complicated than correctable errors and it happens more often than correctable errors.

Z

It's not just blood, though, is it? It also includes injury. For one player to be injured or "bloodied" and have to leave the game, isn't all that rare, but I agree that to have one from each team injured at the same time is rare indeed. I doubt the average would be even as high as one per year per ref. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it!!

Juulie:

You are correct that the rule also applies to injuries, I should have noted that fact. But lets look at the big picture. Even factoring in the entire scoop of the rule, how many times does an injured player or blood rule situation happen during the course of the season. It just does not happen enough times to justify a complicated timeout rule.

MTD, Sr.

I'm still using the 03-04 books, but I couldn't find anything indicating it had to be a full time-out.

3-3-5 deals with an injured player leaving the game "unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team..."

3-3-6 deals with a bleeding player or blood on the uniform and the player leaving the game "unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team..."

Unless there is something in the new books (or the old books that I didn't find), the length of the time-out doesn't appear to be specified.

Mark T.,
I agree with your philosophy regarding the blood rule, but when we throw into the mix that the *star player* was not bleeding, and only had incidental blood from another player (accidentally or intentionally), I think the approved procedure of buying a player back into the game may be justified. :)
mick

went to our state clinic last night here in kentucky and our commissioner had that exact play on his power point presentation, He said for them to use a full time out each, if they had them, if they didn't have a full, THEN a 30 could be used....don't remember what rule it was and don't have my books with me, but he did say the timeouts would be CONCURRENT timeouts and if one coach didn't want to use a timeout to get their player back in, make sure you have them replace the injured/bloodied player before granting the other teams timeout, i'll try to find the rule number.

at our rules meeting last night, we probably had the same powerpoint as jritchie and the same explaination.

Mark, i agree, i'm just over 700 games and have never had a coach do a buy in. seems that "if" i get blood, i get alot of it and player has to go get stitched. now that i've said it, this will probably be the year!

No rule or interpretation that I know of except
the "Editorial Change" (pg2) NFHS <I>Referee</I> Basketball Guide '04-05 - <U>'Buy-in' Time-out Further Explained</U>

what rule says you have to use a full timeout?? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm still using the 03-04 books, but I couldn't find anything indicating it had to be a full time-out.

[/B][/QUOTE]If you still have your 2002-03 casebook, look at the comments on p3- specifically the one at the top. It says "This change permits a player who is required to leave the game for blood or injury to remain in the game if the team calls a time-out <b>(60 or 30-second)</b> and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out". The coach gets a choice of whether to use a full or a 30.

We were told at our State Meeting last night, that if the official sees the blood and stops the game, a time out will not buy their way back into the game. The only way a time out will work is when the player notices the blood and asked for the time out, first. Does that sound right?

the way that was explained last night is the only way you can use a 30 is if you don't have a full left!!!I guess that is why it says "can use a 60 or 30" one coach can not pick a full and the other just use a 30 if they both want their players in, unless the coach does not have the full to use. That is just what was said last night by the commissish!

That sounds like it's completely contrary to the rules as written. See NFHS casebook play 3.3.6- in that play, the players are directed by the officials to leave the game, but can come right back in by using a TO. That's completely different than what your state was telling you.

Bottom line, as always though, is to do what your state tells you to do. I'd check back on this one though.

The procedure is to stop play, then give option to coach to replace in 30 seconds or to buy some time.
mick

Mick:

I understand your argument, but just how often does that situation occur. But just how many times do these situation occur. I am not saying that the situation has not occured in the past or will occur in the future. But I would bet dollars to donuts that the incidence rate does not justify the buy-in rule. Just remove the player(s) involved and let them return at the next substitution opportunity. It takes away the gamemanship that some coaches might want to try and makes application of the rule by officials much easier and straightforward.

MTD, Sr.

Absolutely NOT!! That is not how the rule is to be applied.

Hey, Mark, I'm on your side! I agree with you 100%. At least I think so. I don't have a problem with a single player having to buy his way back in with a time-out. But it seems unnecassarily complicated to add a lot of extra intricacies if there are two injured players, one from each team. Like you say, how often does it happen?

Mark T.,
Well, I started playing in 1960, saw my kids play in the 1980s and 1990s, have been reffin for a while, ... and I remember it happening once. :)
mick

Mick:

Then you understand what I am saying. There is no real need for such a rule that can have such complicated applications.

MTD, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Then you understand what I am saying. There is no real need for such a rule that can have such complicated applications. MTD, Sr.

OK, then let's get rid of the correctable error rule too because (using your logic) I've never had one of those.

Z

I am not advocating any such thing. The application of the correctable error rule is far simpler than the application of this rule because the opporturnity of abuse by coaches and the rarity of its needfulness (I hope that is a real word.)

MTD, Sr.

Z,
The correctable error rule is mainly for those that don't take care of bidness.
No wonder you haven't used it.
mick