Injured Player, 30 or 60 ???

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How did this 60 second mandatory (incorrect) myth start? Does it have anything to do with Stat-Man's correctable error citation? What's the citation for using a 30 if they don't have a 60?

Yes, this stems from the CE rule. The rules citation has gone through several changes in the past decade.

The current reference is 10-5-1(c), but the language is vastly different than it has been.
Current Language: "The head coach may stand and/or leave the coaching box to confer with personnel at the scorer’s table to request a time-out as in 5-8-4."

In the 2003-04 book it was 10-5-1 (b and c) and the text looked like this:
b. Confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out for a correctable error, as in 2-10.
c. Confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

In 2004-05 it was changed to the following:
10-5-1(b) . . . Confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out (or one 30-second time-out if that is the only type of time-out remaining) for a correctable error as in 2-10, or to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

In 2005-06 it was "reorganized" and "clarified" to read:
10-5-2 . . . The head coach may request a time-out or signal his/her players to request a time-out, while within the confines of the coaching box. The head coach may also confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out (or one 30-second time-out if that is the only type of time-out remaining) for a correctable error as in 2-10, or to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

That lasted until 2008-09 when it was changed yet again to the current version.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The rules citation has gone through several changes in the past decade.

Nevadaref: Thanks for your history lesson. I'm sure that you bored several Forum members with your post, but knowing the how rule language changes over the years helps me to better understand the rule.

Great citations. Obviously the result of a lot of research. Thanks for sharing. Keep up the good work. The only thing that would have made your post better would have been if you could have embedded the sound of Barbra singing in the background.

[nine01c]

I wasn't bored with the history lesson, found it interesting, actually. However, the OP pertains to an injured player, not correctable errors or timing and scoring mistakes. I guess the point is to demonstrate where the notion that a 60 second timeout must be taken comes from. A good reminder that this is not required for tending to an injured player.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, this stems from the CE rule. The rules citation has gone through several changes in the past decade.

....

And now you know the rest of the story.

THanks for the citations. I was getting that situation mixed up with the injury situation. (Don't you wish there was just a little bit of consistency).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

THanks for the citations. I was getting that situation mixed up with the injury situation. (Don't you wish there was just a little bit of consistency).

I agree 100%. I get upset with the NFHS people when they make rulings which are contrary to established principles. I'm a big believer that the rules of the game need to adhere to set of principles and fundamentals. Those can be easily taught to officials and provide them with the necessary information to reason their way through any odd-ball situation which should arise. This is not possible if there is no logical thread throughout all of the rules. It then becomes a situation in which the officials must simply memorize the rules for situations A, B, and C and apply them. There is no way that can be taught. One just has to remember and that is when mistakes get made. Excellent referees often have trouble recalling a ruling from ten years ago, and if it has changed or is still the same. On the other hand a collection of solid fundamentals will always serve one well.