Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[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!

[Nevadaref]

Under NFHS rules a team may use more than one time-out to keep an injured or bleeding player in the game, if one time-out doesn't provide sufficient time to have the player ready. A team may even use an excessive TO and take the technical foul penalty, if it so desires.
I will find and post the citation in a past rules book when I can access mine, but I remember reading it and know that it is there.

[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?