Originally Posted by jritchie (Post 856880)

Just don't understand why the NFHS does this stuff! They should leave that statement 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!

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 856891)

Welcome to the club. I've been ranting and raving about this for years. However, I understand the reasoning behind this. If the NFHS kept every interpretation of every rule over the past several decades, the casebook would be longer the unabridged version of War and Peace.

Nevadaref has done a wonderful job of cataloging these interpretations, but if he gets hit by an bus, we're out of luck.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 856895)

If anything you might add a couple of pages.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 856890)

This could all be cleared up by a casebook play like many other situations and nothing would need to be changed.

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 856899)

I'm not sure it even needs that much. I could fix it by adding three characters to the rules book.

"by the end of the timeout(s)"

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 856899)

I'm not sure it even needs that much. I could fix it by adding three characters to the rules book.

"by the end of the timeout(s)"

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 856907)

Which is why my fix works. It doesn't fix the rule per se, because the rule doesn't need fixing. It does however give an indication that multiple timeouts are permitted without being long winded about it.

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 856922)

I agree that if the rules don't outlaw it, then it is permissible. However, since we have 4 pages of posts on this rule, it's obvious that this is NOT as obvious as you think.

The main thing people pointed to in the rules to give their opinion any backing is the singular "timeout." Three extra characters fixes that, doesn't substantially change the rule, and doesn't require two extra paragraphs in the case book.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 856839)

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)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 856889)

Thanks, Nevada...good find.




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

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 857284)

So if the interpretation no longer exists does it make it invalid now? Are the rule makers making a statement by removing this explanation?

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 857287)

No, they just removed it, likely because there is a limit to the size of the books.