coach/injury free throws

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Sitch last night HS boys Varsity.

Player fouled on shot and goes down hard. Partner becons coach on floor to attend to player (he had been down for a few secs). Player ends up being fine and able to shoot free throws. I know rule is that if coach comes on to floor we need a sub. However coach wanted this player to shoot as "he created the opertunity I want him to finish it" This was towards the end of a tight game. We let him shoot the throws. (contrary to rule) No one said a word and this team ended up on the short end by two. I know the correct rule but was wondering if others wouldhave let him shoot throws in this sitch...

[mick]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
Sitch last night HS boys Varsity.

Player fouled on shot and goes down hard. Partner becons coach on floor to attend to player (he had been down for a few secs). Player ends up being fine and able to shoot free throws. I know rule is that if coach comes on to floor we need a sub. However coach wanted this player to shoot as "he created the opertunity I want him to finish it" This was towards the end of a tight game. We let him shoot the throws. (contrary to rule) No one said a word and this team ended up on the short end by two. I know the correct rule but was wondering if others wouldhave let him shoot throws in this sitch...

Sub shoots.

[LarryS]

Sorry coach, he must leave and sub shoots the FTs.

Life's tough sometimes.

[BigJoe]

If you knew this was contrary to the rule, why didn't you offer the coach an opportunity to take a time out in order for the player to shoot? I guess I would agree that if they didn't want to take a time out (or didn't have one) I would make a sub shoot. Anytime you make an exception to a rule, you open yourself up for all kinds of reprecussions.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by BigJoe
If you knew this was contrary to the rule, why didn't you offer the coach an opportunity to take a time out in order for the player to shoot? I guess I would agree that if they didn't want to take a time out (or didn't have one) I would make a sub shoot. Anytime you make an exception to a rule, you open yourself up for all kinds of reprecussions.

The TO would have made sense. We had already switched and I was away from Coach/Player and we erroneously at the time allowed inj. player to shoot. It was after the game that we discussed that the sub must shoot the throws...

[williebfree]

I would not suspect that you would falter from such a fundamental decision....
We all kick one occasionally....

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Yeah no doubt. The fact of the matter was that this kid was not a very good FT shooter and he missed 2 important FT's. (maybe that is why the opp. coach did not say anything.... IT has been a tough week

[cmckenna]

The TO would have made sense. We had already switched and I was away from Coach/Player and we erroneously at the time allowed inj. player to shoot. It was after the game that we discussed that the sub must shoot the throws... [/B][/QUOTE]

Again... unless the coach took a time out. An injured player may return to the game if the team uses a timeout and can have the player ready to play within the time limitations of that time out.

If the coach wants that player to shoot, then they must take the T/O

[Hawks Coach]

When play is stopped already, and particularly in a tight game and the injured player will be a free throw shooter, it is a good idea to be sure that the player needs assistance before summoning a coach. If there is no obvious immediate need (e.g., kid is unconscious), being sure before calling the coach out is a good policy. That may avoid this situation altogether.

However, once you decide the coach needs to assist the player, the player must come out or the team must burn a time-out - neither of which is desirable in a tight game if it can be avoided. But you cannot deviate. That's why I think it pays to be sure before going down that path.

[mj]

Absolutely agree coach. I had a similar sit. recently where I thought the player was more seriously injured than he actually was. I summoned the coach and he came onto the court about 5 feet and then the player got up. I waved the coach back and we continued with the player shooting free throws. The other coach didn't say a word and I didn't have a problem with the player staying in because the coach never got close to the player.

MJ

[dblref]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
Sitch last night HS boys Varsity.

Player fouled on shot and goes down hard. Partner becons coach on floor to attend to player (he had been down for a few secs). Player ends up being fine and able to shoot free throws. I know rule is that if coach comes on to floor we need a sub. However coach wanted this player to shoot as "he created the opertunity I want him to finish it" This was towards the end of a tight game. We let him shoot the throws. (contrary to rule) No one said a word and this team ended up on the short end by two. I know the correct rule but was wondering if others wouldhave let him shoot throws in this sitch...

Watched a similar situation in a game last night. Home player was fouled in the act of shooting and went down hard and immediately grabbed his calf (cramp). Stayed down 3-4 seconds and official beckoned the coach. The coach pretty much refused to come on the court saying his player was O.K. and he wanted him to shoot the 2 f/t's (excellent f/t shooter). Player made both and was immediately subbed for. Home team wound up losing by 1 point (to arch rival) on a blocked shot attempt with .08 seconds left. I was not aware that the coach could refuse to enter the court after being beckoned -- actually, never had it happend and never thought about it.

[Hawks Coach]

By rule, for you that want to follow letter of the law, the beckoning of the coach and/or entering the court is what technically leads to the requirement to substitute, not the actual attending to a player's need. So while you may have been trying to do what seemed right, it is not what the rule says.

Rule 3 Players, Substitutes and Equipment
SECTION 3 SUBSTITUTION
ART. 5 . . . A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game. Unless a time-out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play.

That is why I think it is most important that refs not beckon the coach too quickly when a player is fouled and goes down. If they are not in immediate danger, have the non-reporting offical talk to the player and determine the need for assistance before calling the coach. This is different than if you have visible blood or you stopped play specifically because of the injury.

By the way, this is another interesting example of an inconsistency in the rules.

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties, SECTION 5 COACHES' RULE,
ART. 2 . . . b. Attend an injured player when beckoned onto the court by an official.

The coach is not to come onto the court unless beckoned by the official, but this rule puts the "or comes onto the court" clause in as though the coach is allowed to just come out when a player is hurt. Although it clearly recognizes the reality of severe injury, it is also inconsistent.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
I know the correct rule but was wondering if others wouldhave let him shoot throws in this sitch...

No.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
By the way, this is another interesting example of an inconsistency in the rules.

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties, SECTION 5 COACHES' RULE,
ART. 2 . . . b. Attend an injured player when beckoned onto the court by an official.

The coach is not to come onto the court unless beckoned by the official, but this rule puts the "or comes onto the court" clause in as though the coach is allowed to just come out when a player is hurt. Although it clearly recognizes the reality of severe injury, it is also inconsistent.

I'm not sure it's inconsistent.

By the literal reading of the rule, if a coach isn't beckoned, but comes out, (a) the player must be replaced, and (b) it's a T on the coach.

If the coach is beckoned, then (b) doesn't apply.

From a game management perspective, if the coach comes out, he's been beckoned.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
By rule, for you that want to follow letter of the law, the beckoning of the coach and/or entering the court is what technically leads to the requirement to substitute, not the actual attending to a player's need. So while you may have been trying to do what seemed right, it is not what the rule says.

Rule 3 Players, Substitutes and Equipment
SECTION 3 SUBSTITUTION
ART. 5 . . . A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game. Unless a time-out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play.

That is why I think it is most important that refs not beckon the coach too quickly when a player is fouled and goes down. If they are not in immediate danger, have the non-reporting offical talk to the player and determine the need for assistance before calling the coach. This is different than if you have visible blood or you stopped play specifically because of the injury.

HC,

The "or comes onto the court" provision is probably there because trainers not located on the bench under the coach's control many times will hurry onto the floor when a player is down. They seem to feel that their services must be many times used immediately. Unfortunately, this means that the coach is stuck and needs to sub unnecessarily.

I agree with you that the officials need to be slow to allow anyone to attend to the player unless it is obvious that they need immediate assistance