Coach attends to fouled, injured shooter

Back In The Saddle · #1 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 01:52am

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.

Nevadaref · #2 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 05:30am

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.

rainmaker · #3 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 10:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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.

ChuckElias · #4 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 10:54am

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

JRutledge · #5 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 11:38am

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

justacoach · #6 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 05:19pm

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

TIA

JRutledge · #7 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 05:25pm

Quote:

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

TIA

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

Peace

BktBallRef · #8 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 11:23pm

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
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.

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.

Quote:

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

#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.

williebfree · #9 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 11:34pm

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.

rainmaker · #10 (**permalink**) Fri May 09, 2003, 11:43pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.

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]

BktBallRef · #11 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 08:12am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
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.

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.

Jurassic Referee · #12 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 08:53am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
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.

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.

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.

mick · #13 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 09:22am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

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

Jurassic Referee · #14 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 10:11am

Quote:

Originally posted by mick

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

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

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.

mick · #15 (**permalink**) Sat May 10, 2003, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by mick

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

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

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.

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.