The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 08, 2002, 09:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
I believe the key is whether or not the official has directed the player to leave the game. If I haven't yet done so, as in the example you describe with team B being granted time-out, I see no problem with them handling his injury/bleeding during B's time-out. I agree with those that wrote the rule states his/her team requests time-out, but I wouldn't go sticking my nose over there amongst team A. Now if A1 comes back onto the court after the time-out and is not fixed to your satisfaction, then send him to the bench and now they must burn the TO.
Be a little flexible.
I also think this rule will be rewritten as it is so vague. See some of the earlier posts on this rule change.

[Edited by nevadaref on Nov 9th, 2002 at 02:06 AM]
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 08, 2002, 09:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
even in states that allow a coaching box, a coach isn't allowed to be standing all the time. He/she has to be actively coaching or they sit.
That's the theory. . . But in reality, I've got too many other things to worry about. As long as he's not screaming at me, I don't care if he's standing and coaching, or standing and watching.

Chuck
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 08, 2002, 09:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Because Rule 3-3-6 requires the bloodied player's team to request a time-out in order for him/her to be allowed to return to the game.

RD
But that's only when a player is directed to leave the game.

That didn't happen when the blood was discovered during the TO.

If this happened last year, we wouldn't require a sub, right? So, we don't require either a sub or a TO this year.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 08, 2002, 09:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
An example of how vague and poorly worded this new rule is:
Notice that the rule only requires the team to "request" a time-out. It says nothing about it actually having to be granted!
Does anyone out there have access to the people who write these rules?

[Edited by nevadaref on Nov 9th, 2002 at 02:06 AM]
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 08, 2002, 12:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
Once the player has been attended to, the only way that A1 can stay in the game is if team A takes a timeout. "Coach, do you want to take a time-out to keep him/her in the game or are you going to substitute?"

If sub, tell timer to start the 30-second timer.

If no sub, ask the coach if the time-out is a full or a 30 and then grant it.

Z
Don't have my new books yet, but I believe that only a full timeout can be used to keep the player in the game.
My above statement is incorrect. It can be either type of timeout. I was thinking of the correctable error timeout.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 08, 2002, 11:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Because Rule 3-3-6 requires the bloodied player's team to request a time-out in order for him/her to be allowed to return to the game.

RD
But that's only when a player is directed to leave the game.

That didn't happen when the blood was discovered during the TO.

If this happened last year, we wouldn't require a sub, right? So, we don't require either a sub or a TO this year.
In my sitch I used the example that A1 was discovered to have blood on his uniform after Team B had requested a time-out. This question arose at our State, WA state, rules meeting. The rules clinician stated that if both Teams had bloodied players, both teams would have to use a time-out to get their bloodied players back in the game.
A question was asked to the clinician about a Team calling time-out and then the other Team's player seen by an official leaving the floor to have blood on his uniform. The clinician stated that if the Team that had a bloodied player wanted him back in...then they would have to use a time-out, even though the other Team had already been charged with a time-out.
bob jenkins has a point though...we probably could have let the player in if he got the situation "fixed" during the other Team's time-out...
What's different this year?

RD
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1