The right call or the correct call?
 

I posted this in another thread, but didn't get an responses and probably rightly so as this wasn't directly on the topic of that thread and it continued quite forcefully in its main direction. So, I'm giving it a thread of its own as I look for feedback.

I recently spoke with an official who has a similar philosophy about the note in 5-8-2.

When a player is injured as in Art. 2(a), the official may suspend play after the ball is dead or is in control of the injured player's team or when the opponents complete a play. A play is completed when a team loses control (including throwing for goal) or withholds the ball from play by ceasing to attempt to score or advance the ball to a scoring position. When necessary to protect an injured player, the official may immediately suspend play.

His position is that he is not going to stop play when a team attempts a try for goal and misses, if he can see that they have an easy rebound and put back. He feels that is the right thing to do in the case of an opponent being down injured away from the area of the play.

It seems that by the book, the whistle should be blown, no rebound permitted, and the game resumed with the AP arrow.

How do others feel about this? Is this a poor NFHS rule? Should we follow it anyway? Should we ignore it? Should we lobby for it to be changed?

Injured player
 

the key to this rule is that is says you "may" not "shall" stop play. This is all judgement. Every situation is different. "Words have meaning."

Htbt
 

This may be a Had To Be There situation.

I also don't like the idea of forging a return to the forum after a several month hiatus and disagreeing with you twice in one day ... maybe I should wait until tomorrow.

Oooooh what the heck!

If possible, I would not stop the play where I had to go to the Alternating Possession arrow.

I may allow them the easy rebound and possibly, 'accidentally' stop play before the put-back opportunity. But I wouldn't want to potentially change possesions because of my whistle.

Just my two bits. Obviously an official could do whatever they felt fit the situation. Perhaps the rebounding ball was going to hit the injured player in the head as he lay on the floor.:eek:

I noticed that wording too. But if it comes down to the word "may", then why have these words in the book at all? Why not just write, "the official may suspend play at his discretion?"


I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. This is a discussion. I am seeking opinions in the hope of learning something. I value those on both sides. :)

Actually, that's not at all obvious. There are rules in place which officials are required to follow, right? Afterall, that is part of the job. The crux of what we are probing here is what do the rules require of the officials in this situation?

Nevadaref,

Think of it this way - there are two kinds of rules.

The first are simple black & white - lets call them "shall" rules. Some entity (player, team, coach, official) shall or shall not do some specific thing, ie: if a player lifts their pivot foot before the ball leaves their hand to start a dribble, then it's a travel by definition and we're supposed to call it. The majority of the rules fall into this category.

The second type are guidelines - let's call them "may" rules. While some can apply to others, most apply to officials. The intent is to provide some structure or outline in the way we handle judgement, or what we often see referred to on this board as "had to be there" situations.

Basketball is a complex sport, and it's simply not possible to provide a ruling or casebook example for every possible occurance. The purpose of the "may" rules is to provide some type of general overall uniformity, while giving the official the flexability to act as is appropriate for a specific situation.

I'm not sure there is any "right" answer to stopping the game for an injured player. I had it happen last week in a girls game, and several of the girls were screaming that I needed to stop play because somebody was hurt (there was a break-away layup in progress at the time). In a boys game, you may find somebody hollering, "Will somebody get that guy off the floor, he's in the way!"

As for the shot attempt, another thing to consider is that one team is now shorthanded and allowing the play to continue on the notion that there might be an easy put-back, is unfair to the team with the injured player. After all, the game of basketball is played between two teams of five players.

IF you believe the player really needs attention and IF it's a high school game, then my humble opinion: Blow the whistle as soon as the shot is in the air. That's what it says to do. Do it.

If it is a head injury stop play immediately, don't wait a second, NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION

There are all kinds of different circumstances here. I have blown a play dead as soon as the player went down and I have also waited for quite some time to kill the play. You just have to be the judge of how detrimental it is to the player. If it is just a turned ankle, do you think the game can continue without the player having immediate help or attention? What about a play where the player goes down and slams there head violently on the floor? Maybe a different situation there? Overall this is all based on your judgement as an official.

Always err on the side of safety. If there is any reason to be concerned for the immediate safety of the injured player, stop play immediately. After all, it's a game.

There is another post today about a middle-school player dying on the court. Does anyone remember the result of that game?