First time back for a while ~ hope you haven't discussed this already. If so, my apologies.

A1 injured (on the floor) and B1 with blood on uniform (enough to sit him down). Late in a tight game.
Coach A is beckoned to the floor and B1 is sent to the bench for the blood.
After a reasonable amount of time on the floor, coach A says "I want a full T/O, I think I can get him ready."
During the down time with Coach A on the floor, Coach B has B1 ready to go.
By rule B must take a T/O as well, for B1 to return. You inform Coach B of this and he says "OK, give me a 30."

Question~
For both players to return, can team A take a full T/O and team B take a 30?
if so, How do you time it?
and, When do the teams need to return to the floor?

I'll give you all a chance to answer, then tell you what our state interpreter told us.

Blackhawk

Both teams must call a time out for both players to remain in the game. I'd run both time outs concurrently, making sure that B1 is ready by the end of 30 seconds and A1 is ready by the end of a minute.

The teams need to return to the floor at the end of A's full time out.

At least that's how I'm enforcing it.

Sounds right to me

I thought they both had to use a 60 second time-out (concurrently) unless they had already used three, then it would cost a 30 second time-out. I might be confused because Massachusetts uses five 60 second time-outs per game, but I think I remember this being the case when games use three 60's and two 30's.

Nope, teams always had the choice of calling either a 60 or a 30 second TO. They could also use successive TO's to keep a player in the game, such as a 60 plus a 30 if they wanted to, and the player wasn't ready at the end of their first TO.

That's how I was inforcing it too. The only difference is that they told us not to worry about B1 being ready at 30 sec. As long as everyone was ready to play at the end of the full TO, everything was cool.

The question came up when we had a guy insist that Coach B take a full TO as well. He thought it was only fair, and maaybe so, but the rule book says a time out.

Thanks,
Blackhawk

If B was only charged a 30, then B1 better be ready to play after 30 seconds.

Now here's just a quick game management question, if B1 isn't ready by the 30 second mark, and the coach asks you to upgrade that 30 second time out to a full, should you?? (so for clarification, you charge the full instead of the 30)

[/B][/QUOTE]


If B was only charged a 30, then B1 better be ready to play after 30 seconds. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree, I think I will resubmit the question with that emphasis. The original question and ruling emphasised the Full v 30 question.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Now here's just a quick game management question, if B1 isn't ready by the 30 second mark, and the coach asks you to upgrade that 30 second time out to a full, should you?? (so for clarification, you charge the full instead of the 30) [/B][/QUOTE]

I would think that if you had another TO you could us it (successive TO's), but under Fed rules once a 30 sec. TO is in the book it can't be extended to a FUll TO.

Blackhawk

[Edited by Blackhawk357 on Dec 23rd, 2004 at 11:41 PM]

if both coaches have a 60, then they take a 60.
if A has 60 and B only has 30, they both have 60 to be ready.

Chris: This is what I was taught also. I must admit, the book doesn't state this. Do you know if it is documented anywhere in a past case book or anywhere?

not sure if it's documented in Fed books but this is what is in our rules meeting handout and thats how they said they want us to do it.

From the "COMMENTS ON THE 2002-03 RULES REVISIONS"-- at the back of the 2002-03 rule book.


<b>PLAYER WITH BLOOD OR INJURY MAY REMAIN IN GAME WITH A TIME-OUT(3-3-5&6)</B>- <i>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 <font color = red>(60 or 30-second)</font> and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out. Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain".</i>


The FED had a play on their website at that time that said the same thing, if I remember right.