Since this play was posted on McGriff's, mick and I have been discussing it.

"Player with blood or injury may remain in the game with a time out. Have a question. We had a situation the other night when player A1 was injured and was attended by the coach and trainer on the floor. After a 5 minute delay (they are still on the floor attending to player A1) it was deemed player A1 was fine and wanted to return to game. Coach then called time out. Player A1 returned to game. My question is this. Can a team take a long period of time to attend to player while they are on the floor. Then once player is fine, call time out and then they can return? I can find nothing one way or the other. Can you please help? Thanks"

What's your take?

Why did it take so long to tend to the player while still out on the floor?

FYI
 

<i> For those without new books: </i>


"Case 3.3.5 Situation B: A1 appears 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 onto 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 "immediately", 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 time out to keep the player in the game. (10-5-2b)"

That's a good one. I can see nothing wrong with them taking a lot of time to attend to the player and then calling timeout. They don't have to call the timeout as soon as they start to attend to the player to keep him in. And there are gonna be times when they might have to be out there for a couple minutes or more if a player is badly hurt.

I've got a "no-go" here.

(Please bear with the poor syntax to follow - I'm quoting the book!)

3-3-5 and 3-3-6 deal with a player who is bleeding or whose coach has come on or has been beckoned on to the floor. As in years past, the player must leave the game, "Unless a time-out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play."

Now, I can be a bit flexible on this - team takes 40 seconds to treat player then requests timeout - fine (I'd probably tell them they have 20 seconds left). However, I don't believe the intent of this rule is to "buy" the player's way in at any point by using a timeout, but to get the player ready to play during a timeout situation.

Note 1: NCAA, I'm not sure of. By a technical reading of the rule, a timeout doesn't even need to be granted for the player to come back in, just one "requested" by the team (3-4-13; 2001-02).

Note 2: It used to be said that a player could not "buy there way back into the game" in exchange for a technical foul. However, if a team has no timeouts and the request one to keep a player in the game, wouldn't this be the end result?

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 <u>and if adequate time-outs remain</u>. 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.

Which, unfortunately, doesn't tell us when the TO must be requested? It just states that he must be ready to return at the end of the TO.

It also doesn't tell us specifically what "adequate tme-outs" means. I'm guessing that "adequate time-outs" means a time-out that is not excessive.

Only problem is that there is no definition of "adequate time-outs" and, with apologies to Mr. Denucci, the explaination/rationale behind a rule change is not the rule itself.

I just hope this doesn't become this year's version of the "improper inbound" play. :rolleyes:

I asked this same question at our state meeting during the new rules interpretation session and created the same problem that we are finding here. Nobody has a definitive answer yet to the situation.

If it does, just come to me. Hey, I got the inbounds ruling right months ago :D (No. . . no. . . Dan. . . don't do it. Stop hitting your head. . . :p )

Chuck

We had our state rules clinic today. The blood/injury rule change was the first thing he discussed. In a nutshell:

Whether it takes 15 seconds or 15 minutes to remove the player from the court, the coach can request a TO and keep the player in the game.

If at the end of the TO, the player is unable to play, the coach may subsitute for him/her, even though the 45 second warning horn has sounded. No other substitution can be made by either team.

If two teammates are injured, 1 TO buys both of them a ticket back into the game.

If both teams have a player injured, such as Padgett's post from a couple of days ago, each team would have to use a TO to keep their player in the game.

The coach can burn an excessive TO to keep the player in the game.

Our state interpreter is taking the stance that since the fed does not set a time limit (like volleyball does) then it could be 30 minutes on the floor, burn the TO, stay in the game. Once they make it to the bench or safely out of bounds, resume play or call the TO.