Blood OT

[rainmaker]

I guess I haven't gotten the rule straight, about taking an overtime to let the player back in, after an injury or bloody shirt or something. Is is really the case that they don't get to use the whole time out if the player is ready to go early? What's the point to that rule? What problem does it solve?

And if there's one player from each team that has to be bought back in, why are the TO's concurrent? Why not successive? If Coach A decides to buy his player back in and then Player A is ready, so A's TO is about over, and then after that Coach B decides to buy his player back in, and asks for a TO, is it too late? At that point, if player B isn't ready yet, can Coach B at that point have as much of the 60 as it takes to get B ready?

I'm just not gittin' it, here.

[ref18]

The way I see it:

At the end of the time out I go to check if the player is ready to re-enter the game. I don't worry about going during the time out. The team gets the full time out unless they are ready to go before it expires.

The time outs are concurrent so each team has only the amount of time they requested for treating their injured players. If coach A calls 60 and at the end of 60 coach B calls 60 to get his player in, the A player is at a disadvantage because he has to be ready by the end of the first time out, unless his team chooses to call another. B just called one and got 2 minutes for their player. When 2 players are injured, I'll ask both coaches if they'd like to put those players back, inform them of the procedure, and then inform them if one chooses not to take the time out and sub that the oppertunity to take the time out expires as soon as I ask the timer to start the clock for the time out.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker

And if there's one player from each team that has to be bought back in, why are the TO's concurrent? Why not successive? If Coach A decides to buy his player back in and then Player A is ready, so A's TO is about over, and then after that Coach B decides to buy his player back in, and asks for a TO, is it too late? At that point, if player B isn't ready yet, can Coach B at that point have as much of the 60 as it takes to get B ready?

I'm just not gittin' it, here.

You need to get both coaches' intentions before granting any timeouts. If A decides to take the timeout and B does not, then B needs to provide a substitute before the timeout begins for A. Once that player has been subbed for, they cannot reenter the court until the clock has run and stopped again.
So, it is too late for B at that point, he has already subbed for his player.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

You need to get both coaches' intentions before granting any timeouts. If A decides to take the timeout and B does not, then B needs to provide a substitute before the timeout begins for A. Once that player has been subbed for, they cannot reenter the court until the clock has run and stopped again.
So, it is too late for B at that point, he has already subbed for his player.

SO, I've got A1 and B1 with blood. Stop the game, get both coaches together, get their intentions, get sub for any player that won't be bought back in, grant any to's, but the whole to isn't used if the bloody player is ready early. Is this right?

And does any of this apply to injury? Is it the same routine?

[tjones1]

Juulie, would you like a copy of the statement released by the NFHS this year? It might help.

T Jones

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

SO, I've got A1 and B1 with blood. Stop the game, get both coaches together, get their intentions, get sub for any player that won't be bought back in, grant any to's, but the whole to isn't used if the bloody player is ready early. Is this right?

And does any of this apply to injury? Is it the same routine?

rainmaker,
What these two have told you is correct. The NFHS produced a preseason handout which had a section on this. Perhaps your association doesn't get it. It basically says to learn both coaches' intentions before you grant any time-outs and they will run concurrently, if both choose to go that route.

I'll add that the TOs do not both have to be of the same length either. However, if one team takes a 30, their player must be ready to play by the end of that TO or his team must replace him or take another TO. The opponent will still get the full one minute to get ready, if they took a full.
You do NOT go early unless BOTH teams are ready to play. Same as for any other time-out.
It is the same procedure for blood or an injury.

Now for my personal crusade on NFHS terminology, which is not directed at anyone in particular, but to all who read the board.
The time-out allows the player TO REMAIN IN THE GAME. It does not permit a coach to "buy him back in" since he never left the contest. Please DO NOT use that coachspeak on this forum.
Actually, strictly speaking, once you direct the player to leave the game, it is too late to use the time-out and keep that player in. You really should be giving the coach the option to replace or take the TO after you notice the blood/injury, but before you direct the player to leave.

Lastly a little joke.
No matter what option the coaches select you do not need to make the game go an additional four minute period because of this!

Go take a look at this thread's title: "Blood OT"
and what you wrote in the first line of your post, "...about taking an overtime.."
Tough day?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Lastly a little joke.
No matter what option the coaches select you do not need to make the game go an additional four minute period because of this!

Go take a look at this thread's title: "Blood OT"
and what you wrote in the first line of your post, "...about taking an overtime.."
Tough day?

If it was just the OT/TO thing, I'd plead dyslexia. But with the actual word "overtime" in the first sentence, I have no idea what the problem was.

Thanks for the advice, though. It is very helpful.

I still don't understand why, if both players are ready to go early, they don't get the rest of the time-out. Why ever not?!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If it was just the OT/TO thing, I'd plead dyslexia. But with the actual word "overtime" in the first sentence, I have no idea what the problem was.

Thanks for the advice, though. It is very helpful.

I still don't understand why, if both players are ready to go early, they don't get the rest of the time-out. Why ever not?!

They DO get the rest of the time-out! It is only if both TEAMS, the entire five for each side, are ready and their coaches are done instructing them, that we shorten a TO.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

They DO get the rest of the time-out! It is only if both TEAMS, the entire five for each side, are ready and their coaches are done instructing them, that we shorten a TO.

Hmm. That's not what we were told in our association meeting last night, which is what prompted this post. Or did I miss something, Camron, Smitty, Tim?

[Edited by rainmaker on Jan 6th, 2005 at 09:35 AM]

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
Hmm. That's not what we were told in our association meeting last night, which is what prompted this post. Or did I miss something, Camron, Smitty, Tim?

[Edited by rainmaker on Jan 6th, 2005 at 09:35 AM]


As far as I know, a time-out is never shortened unless both teams are ready to go early.

Z

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I guess I haven't gotten the rule straight, about taking an TIMEOUT to let the player back in, after an injury or bloody shirt or something. Is it really the case that they don't get to use the whole time out if the player is ready to go early?

What's the point to that rule? What problem does it solve?

No, they get the entire TO. Who told you that they didn't?

And if there's one player from each team that has to be bought back in, why are the TO's concurrent? Why not successive? If Coach A decides to buy his player back in and then Player A is ready, so A's TO is about over, and then after that Coach B decides to buy his player back in, and asks for a TO, is it too late? At that point, if player B isn't ready yet, can Coach B at that point have as much of the 60 as it takes to get B ready?

Both players are injured. When both players are able to leave the floor, you go to each coach and ask if they want to sub or use a TO keep their player in.

If Team A wants a TO to keep their player in the game, then Team B must decide what they're going to do BEFORE Team A's TO is granted.

Once Coach B has made his decision, then Team A's TO can be granted. If Coach B decides to sub, then he cannot use a TO to keep his player in the game, because the player has already been subbed for. Yes, it's too late to save player B.

TO's run concurrently if both take a TO because each coach gets 60 seconds, the length of the TO they take, to get the player ready. They do not get to use the length of their TO and the length of their opponent's TO to get their player ready. That's the purpose of the concurrent TO issue. If one team uses a 30 and the other a 60, then both teams get 60 seconds.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

No, they get the entire TO. Who told you that they didn't?

Okay, I'm checking in with the guy that talked at our association last night, and I"ll get back to you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If one team uses a 30 and the other a 60, then both teams get 60 seconds.

Tony,
It's not black and white, but I don't agree with this last little detail.
The team that took the 30 should have their player ready to go in 30 seconds. To allow otherwise would be to encourage a team to make the other coach commit first to what type of TO he is taking.
I can just see the coaches arguing over who is going to have to decide first. Next we'll have to have a rule that says the home team can choose last. Just silly.

[Smitty]

Sorry Juulie, I wasn't at the meeting last night so I can't chime in. I am curious now, though. Please let me know what you find out. Thanks...

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by Smitty
Sorry Juulie, I wasn't at the meeting last night so I can't chime in. I am curious now, though. Please let me know what you find out. Thanks...

Ditto Juulie, I had a game last night so I wasn't there either. I took a quick look, and the following is verbatim from the NFHS web site 2004/2005 rules interpretations:

SITUATION 2: Officials discover blood on players A1 and B1 simultaneously and direct both players to leave the game. After notification by the officials, Team A chooses to call a time-out to keep A1 in the game, while Team B elects to substitute B6 for B1. RULING: B6 must enter the game prior to the official granting the time-out for Team A. A1 must be ready to play by the end of the time-out. B1 may not re-enter the game until the next opportunity to substitute after time has run off the clock. (3-3-6)

There's no requirement that the timeout terminate as soon as the player is ready to go, only that he/she be ready to play by the end of the timeout.

I do recall from the rules meeting in Nov. that if both teams request timeouts, they must run concurrently. I believe it was also stated that if team A takes the time out for blood/injury & is ready to go early, team B must also come out too - they don't get the rest of the timeout period......maybe this is where the confusion arises....

Let me know what you find out.......