Almost Agree ...
 

Agree 100% on this interpretation. I'm still not convinced on the injured player, but I'm still open to other's opinions, hopefully backed by citations.

Largely irrelevant though.

A1 is injured. Coaches requests TO. A1 is not really ready, but coach says she is. Ok, let's continue with A1... then coach requests another TO. Boom - A1 gets another TO to "be more ready". If at the end of any subsequent TO A1 is still not really ready, the coach can just say that the pain came back and present A6. Let A6 in and continue.

That certainly might work in some situations; but if the player still has a shoe off getting his/her ankle taped we obviously are not going to let the player hobble on the floor with one shoe and then grant another TO. And it wouldn't work either with a bleeding player or player with blood on the jersey that obviously hasn't been corrected by the end of the time-out. Just my opinion based on what I believe the rule is saying.

I don't understand the rationale for limiting the TOs here. The coach only gets five; normally, at this stage of the game, he could burn them all in succession if he wants. Why make a big deal if he wants to use an extra one or two to try to keep his star in the game with 30 seconds left?

Hell, if he wants to take a T, why not give him an extra if he wants?

Remember originally if an injured player needed attention by coach/trainer the player had to come out of the game. There was no provision for a
time-out(s) to get the player ready. Then it was added to the rule the coach could be granted "a time-out"... under the condition the injured/bleeding player "must be ready by the end of the time-out." There was no indication that "time-outs" could be used. No doubt there is an element of contradiction between the two rules; but the interpretation I remember is what I said before: two different situations but one intent not to have a lengthy delay getting a player back into the game or allowing a player to shoot crucial free throws after the end of the 4th qtr./OT

Because 3-4-6 and 7 both say the situation must be corrected "by the end of the timeout"...not "by the end of however many timeouts the coach calls". Seems pretty clear to me that they get one timeout period to keep the kid in the game...if they want another timeout, we need a sub for the injured/bleeding player first, then they can have the next timeout.

Sans Injury
 

Let's say, for discussion purposes, that we are talking about a timeout situation not for an injury.

End of game, teams are in a timeout, timeout ends and as players are returning to the floor coach A (who called the original time out) doesn't like the matchups he is seeing and calls another time out - nothing wrong with that, right?
<O:p</O:p

Now insert an injured player into the mix - same exact situation as above except the injured player wasn't ready by the end of the first timeout and was subbed for after the first timeout. Coach A doesn't like what he sees and calls the second timeout. During that second timeout the injured player is readied and enters the game – again nothing wrong with that.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
So let’s just eliminate the step of having the teams report back to the floor before calling the second timeout.

Maybe because you would never grant two timeouts to the same team at the same time. Even successive timeouts are singular - they only occur one at a time and would be referred to as a timeout (singular).

Great Rule Exercise Today
 

Interesting. Furthermore, if that is correct (and the jury is still out on it for me), if a substitute becomes a player in that injured player's place, the injured player could not be "bought back in" by a subsequent timeout, due to 3-3-4: "A player who has been replaced...shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his/her replacement." (the "Sit a Tick" rule). Right?

There's already a rule in place to prevent this.

I get the rule, just not the rationale. If time hasn't expired for the 4th Q or OT, why does it matter? If the coach wants to burn 5 TOs, why shouldn't he be allowed to do so?

All I can say is the rule clearly states "a time-out can be request/granted" followed by the condition: "and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out." The rational, I admit it is not stated, is that the game is not to be delayed by two, three or perhaps even 4 full minutes while the "star" gets patched up. I don't think that's what the rulesmakers had in mind; but I certainly understand the basis of both sides of the discussion.

Honestly, I think this is reading too much into the wording of the rule; but I could be wrong. I'm just not overly confident in the editorial ability and verbal precision of the rule committee.

See scrapper's post in this thread for exhibit A.

I think PAULK1's citation is what makes the most sense. If the injured player is not ready by the end of the TO, the substitution process begins which means no further TO's can be granted until the sub enters the game.

There was no indication that "time outs" couldnt be used either.

For me the intent of the rule is simply to get the player patched up on the teams time NOT on dead ball free time. IMO if the team wants to burn all of their time, that is their business.

When can a timeout be granted?

The case says nothing that's not in the rule as far as this issue goes. And again, I'm not convinced the committee was as verbally precise as you're giving them credit for. Hanging the decision on the lack of an "s" assumes the committee thought this through to a pretty detailed level. If they really wanted to limit it to one TO, I think they'd say so explicitly rather than infer it cryptically.

That's my take on the intent of the rule as well. Again, verbal precision isn't a strong suit of the rules committee. If I ever have it happen, well, I'll deal with it then.