Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[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.

[Freddy]

Something not mentioned yet might be relevant to the point:

Rule 3-3 . . . NOTES: (Arts.6,7) 2. a time-out granted to keep a player in the game must be requested before the replacement interval begins.

We had this question on our state test last year, which prompted this note in my margin: "When the injured player if off the floor, ask, 'Coach, you want a time out to buy him in? or 20 seconds for a sub?'"

Is that germaine, or merely foreign to the discussion?