Injured player...coach beckoned

[justacoach]

There is a seeming disparity between the case book and rules book as to what happens if official beckons coach to atttend to injured player.

Rules book says explicitly:
Rule 3 article 6
ART. 6 . . . A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any
other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team
and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

Case book states:
3.3.6 SITUATION B: A1 appears to be injured and an official properly halts play
and the Team A coach rushes onto the court to check A1. However, A1 is OK and
seems ready to play within a few seconds. RULING: A1 must be removed as the
coach came onto the court. A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not
come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately. If the coach or other
bench personnel have come onto the court, the player must be replaced. There is
no set amount of time as to what is “immed iately,” but it should not involve more
than a few seconds and it must be without the coach, trainer or doctor being
beckoned and/or entering the court. The coach may also call a time-out to keep
the player in the game. (10-4-2)

How to reconcile these two citations if coach ignores my request to attend to injured player?
Does it hinge on whether the player is 'immediately' ready to resume playing?

Appreciate your insights here, got a 6 pack riding on it

[shishstripes]

Make sure the player needs help before beckoning the coach. If they need help, beckon the coach. Most kids need to get over that initial scare of being hurt.

The case play you mention doesn't suggest that the coach was beckoned just that the coach either came out or didn't come out.

Rule clinicians would say that if you have beckoned the coach on the floor, have the coach replace the player or call the timeout. I am not always a clinician and if I believe I prematurely beckoned the coach, I will allow the player to remain in the game.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

Make sure the player needs help before beckoning the coach. If they need help, beckon the coach. Most kids need to get over that initial scare of being hurt.

The case play you mention doesn't suggest that the coach was beckoned just that the coach either came out or didn't come out.

Rule clinicians would say that if you have beckoned the coach on the floor, have the coach replace the player or call the timeout. I am not always a clinician and if I believe I prematurely beckoned the coach, I will allow the player to remain in the game.

How do you justify letting a kid stay in if you beckoned the coach? That completely contradicts the rule and case play. If you beckoned him, you thought he needed help. It's too late to change your mind at that point.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by justacoach

There is a seeming disparity between the case book and rules book as to what happens if official beckons coach to atttend to injured player.

Rules book says explicitly:
Rule 3 article 6
ART. 6 . . . A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any
other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team
and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

Case book states:
3.3.6 SITUATION B: A1 appears to be injured and an official properly halts play
and the Team A coach rushes onto the court to check A1. However, A1 is OK and
seems ready to play within a few seconds. RULING: A1 must be removed as the
coach came onto the court. A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not
come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately. If the coach or other
bench personnel have come onto the court, the player must be replaced. There is
no set amount of time as to what is “immed iately,” but it should not involve more
than a few seconds and it must be without the coach, trainer or doctor being
beckoned and/or entering the court. The coach may also call a time-out to keep
the player in the game. (10-4-2)

How to reconcile these two citations if coach ignores my request to attend to injured player?
Does it hinge on whether the player is 'immediately' ready to resume playing?

Appreciate your insights here, got a 6 pack riding on it

How don't understand what disparity you see. The rule and case play are clear to me

If you beckon the coach, the player must be removed or the coach must use a TO to keep him in the game.

If the coaches enters without being beckoned, he must replace him.

What are you seeing differently?

[shishstripes]

Like I said, if I feel I "prematurely beckoned the coach", I have no problem acknowledging I was wrong and allow the player to stay in. I would do the same thing with an inadvertent whistle (very different in some ways). I am much more patient than I was 10 years ago and you won't see this happen.

At the same time I am not talking about a player who takes two minutes to get ready to play holding their knee in agony. I am talking about a player down momentarily and out of lack of patience, I beckon the coach.

PT is a very coveted thing in this area as teams may only travel with 8 players (if they have 8 available) and only get 10 games a year unless they have enough money to travel to a tournament, which will cost a minimum of $2500 round trip.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How don't understand what disparity you see. The rule and case play are clear to me

If you beckon the coach, the player must be removed or the coach must use a TO to keep him in the game.

If the coaches enters without being beckoned, he must replace him.

What are you seeing differently?

This line throws me...

"A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not
come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately"

So if I beckon the coach and he doesn't come out, do we need a sub or TO? I'm not selling wolf tickets when I beckon the coach. I think the casebook is leaving open the possibility for an astute coach to ignore my beckon in the hopes the player recovers 'immediately'

Little bit contradictory

[shishstripes]

Originally Posted by justacoach

This line throws me...

"A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not
come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately"

So if I beckon the coach and he doesn't come out, do we need a sub or TO? I'm not selling wolf tickets when I beckon the coach. I think the casebook is leaving open the possibility for an astute coach to ignore my beckon in the hopes the player recovers 'immediately'

Little bit contradictory

There's no contradiction, the case play does not say that the coach was beckoned. Just that the coach comes on the court or does not come on the court. By rule, if you beckoned the coach, the player either sits or coach takes a time out. This is where I think it is important to be patient when you beckon the coach.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

PT is a very coveted thing in this area as teams may only travel with 8 players (if they have 8 available) and only get 10 games a year unless they have enough money to travel to a tournament, which will cost a minimum of $2500 round trip.

Personally, I don't care about PT. If the kid can play, he'll be back in very quickly even if the coach doesn't use a TO. I rarely beckon a coach, and once I do, I've made up my mind the kid needs to come out. Unless the kid is writhing in pain, in which case I've never had a coach wait for me, I'll ask him if he can play before I call the coach.

90% of the time, they'll say they can play.

Originally Posted by justacoach

This line throws me...

"A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not
come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately"

Originally Posted by justacoach

Rules book says explicitly:
Rule 3 article 6
ART. 6 . . . A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any
other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team
and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

Originally Posted by justacoach

So if I beckon the coach and he doesn't come out, do we need a sub or TO?

No, beckoned and come onto the court or just come onto the court is the criteria. If the player is up in a reasonable amount of time before the coach coming onto the court, we are playing ball.

[Adam]

This is also the only time I really use a stop sign. I'll glance at the coach and if I see him creeping but I think the player might be ready to go, I'll hold my hand up as I talk to the player. Might not work for everyone, but....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by justacoach

This line throws me...

"A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not
come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately"

So if I beckon the coach and he doesn't come out, do we need a sub or TO? I'm not selling wolf tickets when I beckon the coach. I think the casebook is leaving open the possibility for an astute coach to ignore my beckon in the hopes the player recovers 'immediately'

Little bit contradictory

Re-read the play. The coach was not beckoned. He came onto the floor to check his player. Had he not come on the floor, the player could have remained in the game.