The situation:

A1 goes in for a layup and is fouled hard by B1. A1 goes to the floor in pain, doesn't get up, and the coach is called to attend to him. After a couple of minutes, A1 is back on his feet and ready to shoot his free throws.

My question:

Does A1 have to come out of the game since the coach attended to him? Or is he allowed to stay in the game because he is the free throw shooter?

NFHS rules.

Prior to last season, as soon as the coach was beckoned onto the floor, the injured player had to leave the game and the substitute attempted the foul shots. Last season the rule was changed. A team is now allowed to take a time-out and allow the player to remain in the game. If the injured player's team elects not to take a time-out, simply handle the situation the way it was done previously.

But how WAS it handled previously? The question isn't should A1 go out of the game, the question is, should A1 shoot his free throws before he goes out? Or should the sub shoot them?

I remember asking this question about a year ago, and the response was quite mixed. I don't remember what we finally decided.

If the coach decides not to use a TO to keep his player in the game, then the player must be subbed out immediately. The sub will then shoot the FTs. If there are no available subs, then the coach may choose any of the 4 players remaining on the court to shoot the FTs.

Chuck

Not just calling a timeout..............
 

allows the injured player to stay in the game, the player has to be ready by the end of the timeout also. So if for example this fall caused bleeding from his head and for some reason it cannot be stopped by the end of the timeout, the player cannot come back in at that time.

Peace

same sitch
 

What if the coach is summoned, and the opposing team calls a TO. Can the player stay in the game??


TIA

Re: same sitch
 

According to NF Rules, it has to be the coach whose player is injured that calls the timeouts.

Peace

Re: same sitch
 

Juulie, Chuck is correct. The injured player must leave immediately and the sub must shoot the FTs. There's shouldn't be any mised answers on that question.

The smart thing for the coach to do would be to keep the player on the floor until the bleeding is stopped, then, move him to the bench and use the TO. No problem this way.


#1, the timeout would not be granted until the injured player had left the floor. I don't know that a specific rule addresses it but I wouldn't grant it until the player was able to leave the floor, since we don't normally report a TO until all players jave reached their bench. It would be unfair to Team A to grant a TO to Team B while COach A was administering aid to a player. Further, since play is dead anyway, why would B burn a TO?

#2, once the player is off the floor, a TO can be granted to either team but the injured player's team must use a TO and he must be ready to return when the TO ends. If a player from both teams injured, both teams would have to burn a TO to keep their player in the game.

As is usually the case, I am in BktballRef's corner....

The injured player's coach must take a TO to "buy" the player's return to the game.

Re: Re: same sitch
 

Thanks, Tony. In thinking through this, I realized that the play we argued about last summer wasn't exactly the same. In the case last year, the player was directed to leave because she refused to remove her earrings, which I had just noticed as she was stepping up to the line to shoot free throws. I insisted that a sub should shoot, but couldn't remember whether this was right or not. Finally, if I remember correctly, I backed down and let her shoot, and then she sat. Okay, now I don't remember what I remembered when and what I didn't. I'm going to have to go back and look it up.

Okay, I went back, found the old thread, and added a reply to bring it forward. Glad I looked back, I'm learning!

[Edited by rainmaker on May 9th, 2003 at 11:47 PM]

Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

What you did would have been acceptable in that situation. Remove everyone from the lane, allow her to shoot, then give the ball to B, whether she makes them or not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

And I still completely disagree with you on this one,Tony.You've got two completely different situations here with two completely different rulings.The ruling that you are using-casebook play 3.4.15-refers specifically to uniform violations only. It does not mention any other items,such as safety concerns,and doesn't contain any language that would let you include jewelry in this ruling. Casebook play 3.5.5SitA(c) is very explicit with regards to jewelry,and covers Juulie's sitch perfectly.It says that a player CANNOT participate until the illegal items are removed.If you let the player shoot the FT's with the earrings in,you're letting her participate and you're ignoring the specific language of this particular case play.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

I agree, JR.
Take 'em out before she shoots.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

I think that the FED has been pretty consistent on this one,Mick,as it relates to jewelry.When they made the rule change a coupla years ago regarding wearing jewelry in the pre-game warmup,they specified that the player couldn't continue warming up until the jewelry was removed.They had to leave the floor NOW,not after the drill they were participating in was over.That's consistent of the philosophy of no participation of any kind while wearing jewelry.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

And further, since we have nothing else to do during warm-ups, we can look at ears and necks, and we shouldn't even get to the point of having to tell a player to remove shiney, sharp, pokey stuff.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

Okay, so in the case that I had last summer, she refused to take them out. Wouldn't do it. So do I let the sub shoot? Can I say, sub can shoot, but you can't play any more? Someone on the other thread said, what about the case where the sub is the far better shooter?

Okay, so in the case that I had last summer, she refused to take them out. Wouldn't do it. So do I let the sub shoot? Can I say, sub can shoot, but you can't play any more? Someone on the other thread said, what about the case where the sub is the far better shooter? [/B][/QUOTE]Yup,the player with the earrings has to leave the game,and she can't come back in until she removes them.If she does remove them,she also has to wait for the next legal substitution opportunity after the clock has started to come back in.Her sub has to shoot the FT's,and also has to stay in the game.The fact that the sub may be a better FT shooter isn't really relevant in this case,because the sub is also gonna have to stay in the game and play until the the first legal substitution opportunity after the ball becomes alive and the clock starts,too.

Btw,I should also add that she CAN stay in the game and shoot the FT's if she does comply with your initial request to remove her earrings.That was the consensus on the old thread that you re-posted.If she won't comply,her butt goes on the pine.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 10th, 2003 at 11:30 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: same sitch
 

That's fine JR but whether we agree or not, this case DOES NOT fit Juulie's play perfectly. This case play is about a sub entering the game, not a player who is in the game who is improperly equipped and about to shot a FT.

As to who's right, I think it's fairly gray myself. Therefore, I'm not gonna sweat it. I don't think you delay the game to allow her to remove them but you seem to, so who knows?

Juulie, it doesn't matter who the better FT shooter is. That's not your concern. Don't let it enter your thinking.

[Edited by BktBallRef on May 10th, 2003 at 06:00 PM]

I was referring to the statement used in this casebook play-"A6 simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed".It cites rule 3-5-6 as the reason why-"Jewelry shall NOT be worn".That's a pretty explicit,all-encompassing statement,too.Pre-game warmups are covered similarly in casebook play 3.5SitB.We do disagree then,because I think that there are no situations during your jurisdiction where you would allow any player,whether they are playing or warming up,to wear jewelry.I think that was the intent of the rule.

You see Dick Knox sometimes during the summer,don't you Tony?Why don't you run this one by him,and get his opinion?

A6 is not a player, she's a sub. Therefore, she cannot enter the game until properly equipped. That's why the statement is made in the case book. It's not a statement designed to cover every situation. The case play doesn't address a player who is already in the game. She's already participated while being improperly equipped.

Quote:

You see Dick Knox sometimes during the summer,don't you Tony? Why don't you run this one by him,and get his opinion?

No, I don't, at least not until the state football clinic in August. But I can tell you that he doesn't even want us using 3.4.15. It's more a preference with him, than it is "The rulebook says..."

But I can tell you that he doesn't even want us using 3.4.15. It's more a preference with him, than it is "The rulebook says..." [/B][/QUOTE]Don't blame him one bit.Just tell the player to tuck their shirt in or pull their pants up.As long as they comply,no biggie.

sub doesn't have to stay in
 

JR,
While not saying anything about how you or Tony handle the player with the earrings, I must point out that what you have written about the sub is incorrect. That sub is under absolutely no obligation to remain in the game after shooting the free throws. Another sub may replace this player if the last free throw is successful. In NFHS the only restriction is that the player who was directed to leave must wait until the next substitution opportunity after the clock has properly started. There is no requirement in NFHS that the sub must play even one second before returning to the bench. Of course, you know this, but it slipped your mind.

Re: sub doesn't have to stay in
 

Thanks,Nevada. I wrote that too quickly and without thinking about it very well.I was trying to get across the point that the sub in this case has to shoot all of the remaining FT's,unlike the sub(s) in a technical foul situation.Good catch.

Fouled player has to take shots, she has earrings, she won't take them off and you take her off the court, I do not think that you should be allowing her sub to take the shots. Why not step into lane signal 2 shots and put ball on the free throw line, that way time will expire for shots to be taken (be it 5 or 10 second rule) you will have violations, then opposition gets the ball.

Nick,there isn't anyhing in the ruleset we are using that would allow us to do what you propose.We have to go with the rules that govern this situation.If the player won't remove the earrings,we all agree that she will be going out of the game,and a sub will be allowed for her(if available).What we are arguing about is how quickly she has to go out,in this one particular situation.

Arguing? :confused:

Who's arguing? http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/chatter.gif

Nick, as I wrote earlier, it's not my concern who the better FT shooter is. That has no bearing in this at all.

Discussing? Disagreeing?

I wonder if we'll be discussing the same damn subject a year from now,again.Just like that sappy movie-"Same Time,Next Year".Woody and Tony get together once a year and discuss some stoopid case play,that they'll never use. :D

Just don't let your wives know! :eek:

If the player refuses to take off the jewelry, they must be replaced...The rule clearly states they may not participate.
For those who think this might give one team an advantage of a better FT shooter they must remember it was the officials mistake that gave them the advantage. Either this player was allowed to start the game or was sub'd in with the jewelry
this may seem like a slight oversite but every time we make one
a team may gain an advantage that was never intended.

PAULK1,
I am willing to take the heat for the over-sight, but don't put all the weight on me. Both teams knew the rules, too.
The difference is I have to enforce them.

I do agree, that "brain cramps hurt more than bottles".
mick

Mick,
I wasn't trying to be as hash as my post sounded. I realize we all have brain cramps out there (myself probably more than some). I just wanted to point out to those who thought it was ok to get away from the rule because one team may get an advantage, that this is an advantage that we allowed to happen.
Maybe to also reemphasis our responsibilities when bringing in the sub's. How many times have we seen or done the wave in the sub from the other end of the court and not even looked to see if they were equip'd properly or even eligible to report in?
Just something to think about during the long summer months.