Injured Player, 30 or 60 ???
 

This situation came up at out refresher test study session tonight. No one could seem to find a citation for this situation.

A1 is injured and the head coach of Team A is beckoned onto the court. The coach immediately comes out onto the court to tend to A1. A1 immediately gets up and declares that he's alright and ready to play. Team A has all five of their timeouts available, three 60's, and two 30's. The entire sequence of the injury, the coach beckoned, the coach tending, and the player declaring he's ready to continue play takes less than 30 seconds.

Does Team A have to take a 60 second timeout to keep A1 in the game?

We all knew that if Team A had used all their 60's, that they could keep A1 in the game with a 30.

For some reason, many at the study session believe that a 60 must be used to keep an injured player in the game if the team has a 60, even if the sequence takes only 30 seconds. None of us could find a rule, casebook play, or any other type of citation. Is this one of those myths?

Inquiring minds want to know. Heck. I want to know.

Hmm, can't seem to find it in either the 2009-10 NFHS Rules or 2008 NCAA rules. I could have swron that a team had to use a 60/fulltime out unless all they had were 30 second timeouts.

This is the case, however, for correctable errors where no correction is made (NFHS 5-11-3).

The time it takes to resolve the situation is not relevant to the ruling. If it were, it would encourate a quick judgement on the player's status, potentially leading to further injury.

As such, the timeout length required to stay in the game is not determined by how long it takes to be ready. Once the player is able to move or be moved safely from the floor, the team can either replace the player or call a timeout to keep them in the game. If at the end of that timeout, the player is ready to play, they may remain in the game. That timeout must be a full timeout if any are remaining. If not, a short timeout may be used.

In the 2008-2009 case book it mentions a 60 second time out but not sure if it is requiring it.

3.3.6 Sit A: A1 is injured and play is stopped to permit the trainer or physician to administer aid. (a) A1 is removed from the court and replaced within less than one minute; or (b) the injury is such that the physician will not allow A1 to be removed from the court until being certain it is prudent to do so. After approximately five minutes, A1 is moved from the court. Ruling: No time-out is charged in either (a) or (b), regardless of the amount of time involved. The intent of the rule is to require an injured player to be removed without charging a team with a 60-second time-out, regardless of how much time is consumed prior to removal. A team may call a time-out if they wish to keep the player (if able) in the game. (5-8-2a)

Not sure if that means that a 60-second time-out is required or if that was just used as an example.

Thoughts....

Every reference I find to this situation says the team can used a timeout to keep the player in the game. It does not specify 60 second or 30 second. Does anyone have a reference that says otherwise?

I'll admit that I've been a bit cranky lately, but doesn't anyone READ the comments put in the Rules Book when a new rule is published? :mad:

These comments elaborate on the thinking of the NFHS committee and are extremely useful in understanding how the NFHS wants these rules enforced. :eek:

COMMENTS ON THE 2002-03 RULES REVISIONS
PLAYER WITH BLOOD OR INJURY MAY REMAIN IN GAME WITH A TIME-OUT (3-3-5 & 6): This change permits a player who is required to leave the game for blood or injury to remain in the game if the team calls a time-out (60 or 30-second) and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out. Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate timeouts remain. The previous rule had a potentially tremendous impact on the game when a player had blood on the uniform or body (which may not even have been their own) and was required to leave late in the game, without the ability to immediately return. Under this new rule, if a team desires to utilize a time-out and can rectify the situation by the time the ball will be put back in play, the affected player may remain in the game.


Maybe I'm just a bit too sensitive when it comes to people not having a sense of the history of the rules, but with all the work that some of us do posting the prior rulings, it hurts my feelings. :(

Comments on the 2002-03 rules revisions ...
 

Many at our meeting thought the same thing. I was one of the few who challenged it.

That's what most thought. Most, but not all.

That was the only citation that we found last night. We agreed that it didn't make the answer to our question clear,

Nevadaref has the definitive reference below:

Thanks Nevaderef. Good citation. What about officials who have started their careers more recently than 2002-03? What citations can they use? 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?

We shouldn't have to rely on a 6 year-old interp. If the rule book says time-out and a team can get it done in 30 seconds why would we force them to take a 60 without a rules reference to back us up?

As far as interps go, if the NFHS feels the need to publish an interp to clear up a rule then that language should be included in future rules/case books and/or manuals. We shouldn't have to scour the internet for such information.

Agree.

...and I do stand corrected.....either length timeout will do.

Hurts your feelings? Yes, I think you're being a little sensitive.

If a coach requested a 30 second TO and the player was not ready would you allow the coach to extend the TO to a 60 or require that he take another TO? I would think that another TO would be required but want to get other opinions.

I'va always allowed a coach to use a 30 or a 60.

If a coach requests a 30, he's getting a 30 once I report it.

If he wants more time, he can use another 30 or a 60.

Also, I no longer have any desire to dig out old rules books to look for something that should be in the current book, whether it's this situation or something else. If it's not in the current books and I can't remember it, screw it.

If it's not prohibited in the (current) rule book, then it is allowed. The reason you can't back up the "must take a 60 second timeout" requirement is because it does not exist in the text. This was a good review of a misunderstood procedure.

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. ;)

Misty Water-Colored Memories, Of The Way We Were ...
 

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.