Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[Freddy]

Something not mentioned yet might be relevant to the point:

Rule 3-3 . . . NOTES: (Arts.6,7) 2. a time-out granted to keep a player in the game must be requested before the replacement interval begins.

We had this question on our state test last year, which prompted this note in my margin: "When the injured player if off the floor, ask, 'Coach, you want a time out to buy him in? or 20 seconds for a sub?'"

Is that germaine, or merely foreign to the discussion?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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?

Correct...which negates Scuba_Ref's earlier post also. We get a sub for the injured player, and the replaced player cannot reenter during the successive timeout.

[rockyroad]

Adam, I honestly think you are overthinking this one. We have a specified time period to deal with an injured/bleeding player. The coach can extend that period by calling a timeout. At the end of that timeout, the player is either ready to go, or not. If ready - away we go. And that includes calling another timeout if they want to.

If not ready, though, we now have a procedure to follow to get a sub in for that injured/bleeding player. And that procedure needs to be followed BEFORE allowing anything else to take place - including calling another timeout.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Adam, I honestly think you are overthinking this one.

Inconceivable.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Inconceivable.

Just remember to never get involved in a land war in Asia, or to go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

[Nevadaref]

Under NFHS rules a team may use more than one time-out to keep an injured or bleeding player in the game, if one time-out doesn't provide sufficient time to have the player ready. A team may even use an excessive TO and take the technical foul penalty, if it so desires.
I will find and post the citation in a past rules book when I can access mine, but I remember reading it and know that it is there.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Under NFHS rules a team may use more than one time-out to keep an injured or bleeding player in the game, if one time-out doesn't provide sufficient time have the player ready. A team may even use an excessive TO and take the technical foul penalty, if it so desires.
I will find and post the citation in a past rules book when I can access mine, but I remember reading it and know that it is there.

I would love to see that citation, because it would pretty much contradict the rules as written now. Which wouldn't really surprise me...

[JRutledge]

For the record we were given an interpretation in my state (not sure if it came only from our bosses) that we were to allow as many timeouts as needed to allow the player to come back into the game after multiple timeouts if need be. So actually there is a little more than an opinion in my situation, but listen to your local people to do what would be accepted in your area.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For the record we were given an interpretation in my state (not sure if it came only from our bosses) that we were to allow as many timeouts as needed to allow the player to come back into the game after multiple timeouts if need be. So actually there is a little more than an opinion in my situation, but listen to your local people to do what would be accepted in your area.

Peace

And I agree with this interpretation. If a team wants to use multiple timeouts in succession to buy a player back in, I don't see why there should be a rule to limit that. Like tref mentioned, I think it's obvious that NFHS' intent is to allow a team to "buy" a player back in on their time rather than just "free" dead ball time.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I would love to see that citation, because it would pretty much contradict the rules as written now. Which wouldn't really surprise me...

Here you go...

From the 2002-03 NFHS Rules Book on page 70 and also appearing on page 3 of the 2002-03 NFHS Case Book:

Comments on the 2002-03 Rules Revisions

Player with blood or injury may remain in game with a time-out (3-3-5 & 6): This change permits a player who is required to leave the game for blood or injury to remain in the game if the team calls a time-out (60 or 30-second) and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out. Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain. The previous rule had a potentially tremendous impact on the game when a player had blood on the uniform or body (which may not even have been their own) and was required to leave late in the game, without the ability to immediately return. Under this new rule, if a team desires to utilize a time-out and can rectify the situation by the time the ball will be put back in play, the affected player may remain in the game.


*I also found an NFHS interpretation from that same season which states that a team may take an excessive time-out if it so desires in order to keep an injured or bleeding player in the game.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

Publisher’s Note:
The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.
Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2002


SITUATION 6: In the last 30 seconds of a game, a player from each team has blood on the uniform. Team A has a time-out remaining and Team B does not. RULING: If the officials direct both players to leave the game, both teams must call a time-out to keep the respective players in the game. The player for Team B must leave the game since his/her team is out of time-outs. COMMENT: Team B could call an excessive time-out resulting in a technical foul to keep the player in the game. (3-3-6)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

Actually, as the passage posted above clearly says that is exactly what the rules makers had in mind. They were looking to eliminate the potentially negative impact that forcing a player to leave late in a close game could have on the outcome. The idea is to allow that kid to return without missing any game time, if possible. The trade-off is that the team must burn time-outs while the star is made ready for play.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, as the passage posted above clearly says that is exactly what the rules makers had in mind. They were looking to eliminate the potentially negative impact that forcing a player to leave late in a close game could have on the outcome. The idea is to allow that kid to return without missing any game time, if possible. The trade-off is that the team must burn time-outs while the star is made ready for play.

Great! Thank you Nevadaref for taking the time to find this and clearing up the issue (and my mistake).

[jritchie]

Just don't understand why the NFHS does this stuff! They should leave that statement " Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain." in the new versions of books, we have had thousands of new officials since 2003 and if they leave it out, they have never seen the rule, crazy!

[Camron Rust]

Thanks, Nevada...good find.

Originally Posted by jritchie

Just don't understand why the NFHS does this stuff! They should leave that statement " Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain." in the new versions of books, we have had thousands of new officials since 2003 and if they leave it out, they have never seen the rule, crazy!

I agree. ALL interpretations like that should remain in the book as long as they're valid.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jritchie

Just don't understand why the NFHS does this stuff! They should leave that statement " Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain." in the new versions of books, we have had thousands of new officials since 2003 and if they leave it out, they have never seen the rule, crazy!

I totally agree and why I hate the fact that we have to use an old interpretation to determine what should be listed in the current rulebook and casebook. But with that being said, I do not think this is really that complicated to determine what the rule says. There was no wording IMO that did not make that clear. Actually until this conversation, I did not even realize that anyone would be confused by the intent of the rule or the wording. This could all be cleared up by a casebook play like many other situations and nothing would need to be changed.

Peace