SITUATION 7: A1 is directed to leave the game because of blood on the uniform. Team B calls a time-out followed by a successive time-out called by Team A.

RULING: A1 may remain in the game if ready to play at the end of A1's time-out. (3-3-6)

Help me out here! If A1 has been directed to leave the game, Team B cannot be granted a TO until a sub has entered the game. So, how can A1 remain in the game if Team A burns a TO?

The sub must enter the game prior to Team B having their request granted. A1 is now bench personnel and can't re-enter until the clock has restarted. So, a TO will not save her.

An NFHS boo-boo?

Tony, you as an official directed the player to leave the game....

Rather tell the coach the situation and let him either give you a sub or call a TO to hopefully repair the situation.

A little less hasty to DEMAND a sub is probably the answer. Am I missing your point?

To the both of you.
 

Tony (I mean the Down Town one),

The rules direct us to have a replacement for blood or injury. This is why there is a new rule for allowing a coach to buy back a player into the game with a timeout. We are not required to just sit there until the situation is taken care of. If that is the case, they would be allowed to fake injuries to stop play. Get the player out of the game and move on.

TH,

The only way a player can remain in the game is if his/her team calls it and the situation is taken care of during "their" timeout. There might be a modification to this rule by next year, to cover this situation. But we will have to wait and see.

Peace

Yes, you're missing the point.
 

That's not the rule and it's not the point I was addressing. A player who is bleeding must leave the game unless the coach burns a TO and the player is ready to play at the end of the TO. In Situation 7, the NFHS is telling us to award Team B with a requested TO. BUt that TO can't be granted untul a sub enters the game for A1. After that sub enters, the TO can be granted. But A1 cannot re-enter the game until the clock has restarted.

Re: Yes, you're missing the point.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]A. NFHS did not think this through.

B. Since the NFHS said it is OK in “this situation” it is OK.

C. None of the above.

D. All of the above.

----
And like other situations we have talked about over the years I'll go with D. :confused:

I'm going to go with B from RecRef's list of options - if the NFHS says it's okay, it's okay (consider it an exception where the rulings seem to contradict the rule book.)

What I would suggest, though, is that team A be granted their timeout followed by team B being granted a timeout (if they still want/need one). A timeout cannot be shortened unless both teams are ready, and this timeout is no different.

So: A1 is bleeding and you notice it, team a requests and is granted a timeout so that A1 can stay in the game. Now, even if B requests a timeout afterwards, A1 is still eligible (i.e., has not been subbed for).

This ruling tells us what to do if the official mistakenly grants a time-out to Team B when they really shouldn't be given one because of the bleeding player from Team A. It tells us that if Team A then takes a time-out too, you let the player stay in the game.
If it is me on the court, I don't grant Team B's request until Team A clarifies that they are going to substitute or take a time-out.

The interpretation doesn't say anything about the official "mistakenly" granting a TO. The NF simply missed the interpretation. It's not the first time.

Obviously you agree with me and think that the official mistakenly granted Team B a time-out in this case.
So, while this play may not be titled "Erroneous time-out granted during stoppage for blood" it does tell us how to handle the situation. Specifically, the player may remain in the game if the problem is fixed during the two time-outs.
If you read this play this way it makes sense. If you choose to say the NFHS screwed up that is fine too. I know you won't have to deal with this play in your games, since you simply won't grant the first time-out.

Ah, no I don't. I think the NF didn't think through the situation and made a mistake in the interpretation.

On second thought...
 

Since it is a hypothetical official, granting a hypothetical time-out, ....Who cares?

Well, let's see, since it's an interpretation on the NFHS Basketball Interpretations page, I care.