Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Both rules (3-3-6,7) and (5-11-7) I believe were implemented to prevent lengthy delays by using successive time outs to keep a player from shooting crucial free throw(s) when the fourth quarter or OT period has ended.

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.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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)

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).

[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?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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

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

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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?

[Scuba_ref]

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?


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.

So let’s just eliminate the step of having the teams report back to the floor before calling the second timeout.