NEW Case Book ruling!!!
 

There is an unannounced change in one of the Case Book rulings. I do not agree with the new ruling, but here is the change that the NFHS made:

2005-2006 Version:
5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Even though Team A has used all its allowed time-outs, A1 requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out is granted and results in a technical foul. The additional 60-second time-out provided for an overtime period cannot be used until the overtime has actually started with the ball becoming live. This overtime begins with the technical-foul free throws by Team B, followed by a division-line throw-in opposite the table. (10-1-7)

2006-2007 Version:
*5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Team A has used all of its allotted time-outs. Team A requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out should not be granted. The additional 60-second time-out provided for each extra period(s) shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the extra period(s).

Is there a web link available for this?

Thx.

As I said this is an UNANNOUNCED change, so you aren't going to find anything on the web about it. This new ruling just appeared in this season's printed Case Book.

Huh??
 

Wait a minute. You are upset with a change that was made without fanfare and you disagree with the "change." When I raised the very same issue with a ruling that should be reflected in the casebook (and you cannot find anywhere in current NF literature) you went off about how dumb it was to ignore what that NF's rulings. Now you have a case play that is clearly illustrated and you know they are wrong?

My position has always been that the NF makes a lot of mistakes and every year they have to reference a correction in other sports because someone did not read what was actually in the book. In football this year there were about 3 plays that were totally wrong in the NF Casebook and had to be retracted to reflect the actual rules. Nevada, you on the other hand have done nothing but tell people how correct the NF is and now you are trying to say "you" know what is right. Your position sounds hypocritical if you ask me.

Peace

Tony,
Look again. The old case play said that they could have the time-out. It is the NEW case play which says that they cannot!

Ok, it shouldn't be granted. But what if you do grant it? What if you have a brain cramp, blow the whistle, announce "Time-out, blue", report it to the table, and then your partner comes over and tells you that you "shouldn't" grant the time-out?

Do you still follow the old case, since you've granted the time-out? Or do you go and tell everyone that there is no time-out?

I honestly have no idea. Furthermore, I don't even know if this would apply to that situation:
5.8.3 SITUATION E: The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.

At least they put the asterisk by the case play to note that it was new / changed.

I agree that the "old" case play was better -- from a game management standpoint, though, I would explain to the coach that s/he didn't get the extra TO until the OT started and ask if they still wanted the TO.

5-12-2
 

(italics mine)

One could argue that these words mean that regulation playing time has expired, and that the New period hasn't started.

Plus 5-12-4 says that a time out shall not granted using the new time out until after the overtime period starts.

If you interpret 5-12-2 the way it appears, then the Case Book ruling seems to make sense.

Yeah, I thought of that rationale, but does that mean that a team cannot take a sixth time-out during halftime or the intermission between quarters because that is not DURING REGULATION PLAYING TIME?

How about during a dead ball period? One could interpret that as not DURING playing time!


We already have a rule which states that successive time-outs cannot be granted following the expiration of time in the fourth quarter is it really a big deal if a team takes one? Ironically, we now have the situation in which the team may take one of its five alloted time-outs prior to the extra period, but cannot be charged with a sixth one if they had already used their five? What is the rationale behind that?

Don't me confusing me with all these #$&#@#$ COLORS!! :p

And those "b"s that look like "m"s. :D

If a coach needs a timeout between the end of regulation and the jump ball administration, he needs to find a new line of work. I can't understand a coach who has six practices a week and an untold number of games under his belt in the season and in his career that can't put five players on the court for a jump ball without calling a timeout.

Neber sayed I kould tipe.

What if his player got injured and had to be attended to on the floor during the buzzer beater attempt? He would need to use a TO to keep this kid in the game and allow him to start the extra period. There are good reasons that this might come up.

Rule reference please.

3-3-5 What am I missing? :confused:

So, at the end of the 1st half A1 gets hurt and the coach(es)/trainer come(s) on the court to tend to A1. A1 is not allowed to start the 2nd half unless Team A takes a time-out?

Maybe a more likely example is a player off to the rest room during the intermission that hasn't returned yet.

Anyway, he's got 11-14 other players. Get 5 players in there and play ball. You ought to be able to make it through one play without a player.

:) ****ing aright he's playing!

That's what the rule says.

If the team has to take 8 minutes to treat this injured player, are you now going to tell the coach that he only gets 2 minutes with the rest of his team for halftime? I'm sure that will go over well.:rolleyes:

I wouldn't start any time-out or intermission period until the injury situation has been resolved. Otherwise you are going to screw that team out of at least part of its allotted time.

That philosophy is expressed in this Case Book play:
REPLACEMENT OF A DISQUALIFIED OR INJURED PLAYER
10.5.3 SITUATION A: A1 has been injured and has received extensive medical attention on the court. The coach: (a) helps assist the injured player to the bench; or (b) remains at the bench area while A1 is treated and helped to the bench. How much time does the coach have to replace A1? RULING: In both (a) and (b), the coach will have 30 seconds to replace the injured player. In (a), the 30 seconds should start after the coach can turn his/her attention from the injured athlete to the duty of making a replacement. In (b), the 30 seconds would begin as soon as A1 has been returned to the bench. In both cases, the timer should be instructed by the official when to start timing the 30 seconds, sound a warning horn at 20 seconds and to notify the official when the allowed time has elapsed.

You're going to enforce the 30 second limit to replace this injured player during halftime? During the intermission, he is not a player, he is bench personnel. 4-34-1 & 4-34-2

You make an good point about the definition of a player and his status during the halftime intermission. There is no disputing that.

However, we need to consider some other things too.

1. When does the halftime intermission start? Normally it starts with the ending of the second quarter. If someone is injured on that final play, is this still the case?

2. What was the status of the kid at the time he became injured? Let's see the ball was live during the 2nd quarter...seems like he was a player.
Does that matter?
3-3-5 says "a player who has been injured." Has been is past tense. Should 3-3-5 apply to him or does his status immediately revert to bench personnel with the sounding of the horn (ending of the try for goal), and thus this kid is a team member who is being treated on the court by bench personnel? These are definitely questions that we should attempt to answer in striving to make the correct ruling.

3. What if the situation takes 20 minutes to resolve? Let's say that the player hit his head and they won't risk moving him until the trainer on site says he can get up. Furthermore, suppose that the kid turns out to be ok and those treating him were just being extra cautious. Can he now take the court to start the 3rd quarter? The team trainer/doctor says that it is fine.

The quarter ends when the ball becomes dead...which is when time expires or an airborne try ends or after all FTs have been shot. A player that is injured as the quarter ends does not extend the quarter.

The time that the player is injured is not relevant. What is relevant is when the player is attended to....which is during intermission.

Not gonna happen....but an interesting question. Not sure. I think he was unconcioius. ;)

While the rules book clearly spells out when a quarter ends, it does not state nearly as clearly when the intermission is to begin. Most of us understand it to begin immediately, but that is under normal circumstances.

Plus there is one substantial gray area.

5-6-2 EXCEPTIONS:...
3. If a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the timer cannot get the clock stopped before time expires or after time expires, but while the ball is in flight during a try or tap for field goal. The quarter or extra period ends when the free throw(s) and all related activity have been completed. ...

To examine this phrase consider the following play which includes a foul.

If airborne A1 trys for goal just prior to the horn sounding and then charges into B1 prior to returning to the floor causing B1 to be injured on the play and require treatment on the playing floor, is the time it takes to attend to B1 considered part of that quarter? Is the injury to B1 and his treatment on the floor "related activity" which has not yet been completed?

Really? Where does it say that? 3-3-5 specifies that it must be a player who is injured and also states WHERE the coach or bench personnel must be beckoned, but it says nothing about WHEN.

Still doesn't solve the issue though. When the team doctor writes out a note for you on the spot are you going to allow the kid to start the 3rd quarter? ;)

I have to agree with Nevada on this. The Casebook does allow the coach to have his full allotted time for a time out after addressing an injury. Since there is no case study for the same scenario at intermission, I've got to believe the same scenario applies. The referees should stay on the floor until all members of both teams are in the locker room. I would have the table not start the halftime clock until the player is removed from the floor carried or on his/her own power and we start for our locker room.

If he is a Doctor, and the note is more than scribbled on a napkin (say on a perscription pad), we as officials are not members of the AMA. We have received the only verification we need. If the player is endangered, we are not responsible, and 2-8-5 says the player can play.

I'm not advocating that we bar the kid from further participation in the game, I'm only stating that it is my belief that he cannot START the third quarter unless his team takes a time-out since no time has come off the clock following his being injured.

Why are you arguing how long it takes to get him off the floor? That has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. :confused:

The discussion is can he start the next period. There's absolutely nothing that says he can't start the next period if the coach so designates. Play was not stopped so he could be attended to. He became bench personnel when the previous period ended. The coach now has to designate his 5 starters for the next period.

Don't be a plumber.

[quote=BktBallRef]Why are you arguing how long it takes to get him off the floor? ...
Play was not stopped so he could be attended to. ...quote]

That's why. If the player is injured and attended to on the floor for 20 minutes, then the game obviously is going to be held up for him because halftime is only 10 minutes in length (15 max under special circumstances).

And if the game isn't held up, there's no rule that I know of that says that any listed teammember can't start the third quarter. What happens <b>between</b> periods from a medical standpoint isn't our business, unless we absolutely knew that a player lost consciousness or something.

Don't be a plumber.:D

Say what?:confused: <i></i>

Here, at the beginning of each period, the head coach sends out the 5 players he wants to start that period. Does somebody else do it where you live or do you guys allow them to start with less than 5? :)

That is the quirk the rules committee failed to address with the new rule. All they wanted was to make any technical foul which happened during intermission to be an indirect on the coach also. Instead of just incorporating it into a definition of an indirect foul they messed with the definitions of Player, bench personnel and substitute.

In the past the 5 players on court at the end of 2Q remained players by definition. That said, if neither the coach, sub, etc. told the scorer who the 3Q starters would be by the warning horn rules required the 5 players on court at end of 2Q to start 3Q.

Now since ALL are bench personnel (substitutes by def) the only way to get a sub in the game is they must report to start the 3Q. If not done by the warning horn the rules as they stand now provide neither a way to designate who must start by rule nor a way to legally get anyone into the game as the rules prohibiit any subs after the warning horn.

Tony and Daryl,
While it is certainly true that the NFHS clarified that all team members are bench personnel during intermission this year, that is not new. It has been in the Case Book for years.
As for making the coach declare 5 players or have 5 kids check in with the table prior to the start of each period, do you really try to enforce that? If so, you might need to borrow my pipe wrench! :D

Sorry I'm so slow to respond. Its Ohio State-Wolverweasel week.

I interpret Playing time to me time on the clock, not live ball/dead ball

To enforce it would make more problems than ever. I know I won't. I surmise the only ones who might are the ones who want to show their rules superiority and forget common sense.

BTW: They are bench personnel only during halftime (intermission between 2Q and 3Q). During the intermission between the 1Q and 2Q and the intermission between the 3Q and 4Q they remain players so no one would have to report then.

I agree the case book has been trying for years to say that all team members were bench personnel. But by plain rules definitions it was wrong, wrong, wrong. Previous rules always said a player remained a player until he was substituted for, etc. The new rule making everyone bench personnel during intermission was not a clarification but was in reality done to cover their own butts by making a rule in line with their erroneous ruling to make themselves look good rather than admit their own mistake.

That is another of my pet peeves. Rules can never be adopted by the case book. The rule book must be changed first. The purpose of the case book is to be an aide to understanding the rule. To make "law" through editorial changes or interpretations which clearly in opposition to adopted definitions prostitutes the whole system on which integrity relies.

Reference, please.

I agree they don't need to report -- they also don't need to report before the 3rd quarter if the same individuals are players

Where did I say this was new?

Where did I say they had to report?

You'd be better served to read what's written, as opposed to trying to read into things. That's true in several threads that you're currently involved in. :(
________________________

Darryl, intermission occurs between all periods, not just the 2nd and 3rd.