Slashing A1 with ball dived into a crowd. A finger, an elbow, a shoulder, or something went into his eye and a soft contact lens came out. No foul called and Team A is awarded the ball out of bounds.

[<i>Play stoppage looking for contact</i>]

A1 went to bench with watering eye while others looked on the floor.

Coach B wants A1 (the Team A stud) replaced instead of being allowed to continue. Coach A wants A1 back in the game without having to re-enter.

My thoughts: <li>Eye wear is allowed to be replaced. <li>This is not injury or blood to buy with a time-out.

As I am appeasing both of the coaches, the ripped contact was found and the player had no replacement lens. Eye was still watering and <u>he wanted to sit</u>. Long and short of it was that the situation fixed itself.

I would have been willing to allow a replacement lens and the player to return without sitting if the replacement could have been put in "immediately". (<i>Immediately would have been my judgement.</i>)
However, since we had used a few minutes of post-game time, I was inclined to and did ask the Coach for a substitute, which he did provide.

I ask for guidance on this subject.
mick

I agree with you mick...I would have let the player back in without the team having to use a time-out.
Also, I would have let the player have a new lens put in if, as you said, it was done "immediately".

Maybe we feel this is somewhat of an amends to the player not getting a call for getting poked in the face, which rarely gets called anyway. (In fact, had a no call last night where a player got a finger in the eye.)

Having said that...could we treat the contact lenses the same as player's equipment?
Would we allow a player to replace a ripped shoe?
A torn jersey? Without getting a substitute to replace the player while he replaced his equipment?

Dude

I would require a TO to "buy" the player back, because I view this as an injury. If we are halting to search for a contact lens then the player needs to sit.

The only exception I would tolerate would be if there was no "real" delay. As mick said, "A replacement could have been put in "immediately". (Immediately would have been my judgement.)

BTW: I have had a similar situation and done as indicated.

Hey Mick, I thought basketball was a "non-contact" sport!

We have two seperate situations in this play:

1) Player who who had a finger stuck in his eye, i.e., injured player.

2) Lost contact.

The question that has to be asked is: Why are we stopping the game? Because the player came out of the stands holding his eye or because he told the officials his contact came out? I would be inclined to stop the game because the player is holding his eye, which would have me leaning toward an injured a player situation.

Having made the decision that I am stopping the game because the player is holding his eye, the contact lense is only a secondary matter. I would treat the player has an injured player and apply the injured player rule in this case.

zebra44,
Not too bad for Yooper humor. ;)
Eye am begining to undertan.
mick

Excellent advice!
 

Mark T.,
And ya know what? I have no idea why the whistle was blown, but next time, per your reasoning, I'm definitely going to find out.
Thanks.
mick

I have to agree. If the kid goes to the bench because his eye is watering, I have an injury. If he stays on the court and looks for his contact, he's not injured IMHO.