Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[JRutledge]

A player can use as many timeouts that they have in order to get their player into the game. No rules restriction that it only applies to one timeout. Not very likely as timeouts are valuable, but they can call multiple ones legally except when OT is involved.

Peace

[palmettoref]

Thanks JR ..... that was my thought as well but I wanted to get some more clarification!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

Thanks JR ..... that was my thought as well but I wanted to get some more clarification!

Jeff's opinion is great but it is still just the opinion of an anonymous internet dude. It's not going to carry much weight if you work a game with one of those guys and the situation comes up.

More useful is knowing the exact rule(s) that would cover this situation and being on the ready with input.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Jeff's opinion is great but it is still just the opinion of an anonymous internet dude. It's not going to carry much weight if you work a game with one of those guys and the situation comes up.

More useful is knowing the exact rule(s) that would cover this situation and being on the ready with input.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

I do totally agree with you BTW.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They can call multiple ones legally except when OT is involved.

Fourth period, 0:00 on clock, game hasn't ended?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Fourth period, 0:00 on clock, game hasn't ended?

Right, Jeff worded it slightly incorrectly, in that OT really isn't a factor; but the expiration of time in the fourth quarter or OT is what prevents successive TOs.

[PAULK1]

Rule 3-3-7 & casebook 3.3.7C both say that the player must be ready to play by the end of the TO. As with any other required sub situations any further TO's should not be granted until all required substitutions are completed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Rule 3-3-7 & casebook 3.3.7C both say that the player must be ready to play by the end of the TO. As with any other required sub situations any further TO's should not be granted until all required substitutions are completed.

While it may not be the intended meaning of the rule, both the rule book and case book do seem to agree with you as they talk about the timeout in singular form....seeming to mean they only get one timeout to have the player ready to continue. If not, the player must be replaced.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Rule 3-3-7 & casebook 3.3.7C both say that the player must be ready to play by the end of the TO. As with any other required sub situations any further TO's should not be granted until all required substitutions are completed.

3.3.7 SITUATION C: Officials discover blood on players A1 and B1 simultaneously
and direct both players to leave the game. After notification by the officials,
(a) Team A chooses to call a time-out to keep A1 in the game, while Team B elects
to substitute B6 for B1; (b) both teams request a time-out to keep A1 and B1 in
the game. RULING: In (a), B6 must enter the game prior to the official granting
the time-out for Team A. A1 must be ready to play by the end of the time-out. B1
may not re-enter the game until the next opportunity to substitute after time has
run off the clock. In (b), both teams are charged a time-out and the time-outs run
concurrently. If one team requests a 60-second time-out and the other a 30, the
duration shall be 60 seconds. Both A1 and B1 must be ready to play by the end
of the time-out.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While it may not be the intended meaning of the rule, both the rule book and case book do seem to agree with you as they talk about the timeout in singular form, seeming to mean they only get one timeout to have the player ready to continue. If not, the player must be replaced.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. I hope that Forum members continue the discussion to either confirm, or deny, this.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

3.3.7 SITUATION C: Officials discover blood on players A1 and B1 simultaneously
and direct both players to leave the game. After notification by the officials,
(a) Team A chooses to call a time-out to keep A1 in the game, while Team B elects
to substitute B6 for B1; (b) both teams request a time-out to keep A1 and B1 in
the game. RULING: In (a), B6 must enter the game prior to the official granting
the time-out for Team A. A1 must be ready to play by the end of the time-out. B1
may not re-enter the game until the next opportunity to substitute after time has
run off the clock. In (b), both teams are charged a time-out and the time-outs run
concurrently. If one team requests a 60-second time-out and the other a 30, the
duration shall be 60 seconds. Both A1 and B1 must be ready to play by the end
of the time-out.



I'm not sure that I agree with this. I hope that Forum members continue the discussion to either confirm, or deny, this.

Both rules (3-3-6,7) and (5-11-7) I believe were implemented to prevent lengthy delays by using successive time outs (1) to allow an injured player to return to action and (2) to keep a player from shooting crucial free throw(s) when the fourth quarter or OT period has ended. It would have been nice if it were added to 5-11-7..."or to extend the time needed to get an injured player ready" but 3-3-6,7 already says "unless a time-out" (singular) is granted..."and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out." (singular)

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Rule 3-3-7 & casebook 3.3.7C both say that the player must be ready to play by the end of the TO. As with any other required sub situations any further TO's should not be granted until all required substitutions are completed.

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.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

[Adam]

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Right, Jeff worded it slightly incorrectly, in that OT really isn't a factor; but the expiration of time in the fourth quarter or OT is what prevents successive TOs.

Well that does involve OT, it just is not the actual wording of the rule, that is true. Then again something told me that folks would point this out.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that does involve OT, it just is not the actual wording of the rule, that is true. Then again something told me that folks would point this out.

Peace

It's what we do around here.