Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[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?

[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!

[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.

[billyu2]

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?

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.

[Adam]

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.

Honestly, I think this is reading too much into the wording of the rule; but I could be wrong. I'm just not overly confident in the editorial ability and verbal precision of the rule committee.

See scrapper's post in this thread for exhibit A.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Adam

Honestly, I think this is reading too much into the wording of the rule; but I could be wrong. I'm just not overly confident in the editorial ability and verbal precision of the rule committee.

See scrapper's post in this thread for exhibit A.

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.

[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!