Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[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

[tref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

There was no indication that "time-outs" could be used.

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tref

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?

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.

[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).