Timeout

[Nevadaref]

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]

[ChuckElias]

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

[bob jenkins]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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]

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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