Injured Player/Successive Time Outs

[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!

[Camron Rust]

Thanks, Nevada...good find.

Originally Posted by 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!

I agree. ALL interpretations like that should remain in the book as long as they're valid.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Thanks, Nevada...good find.




I agree. ALL interpretations like that should remain in the book as long as they're valid.

So if the interpretation no longer exists does it make it invalid now? Are the rule makers making a statement by removing this explanation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So if the interpretation no longer exists does it make it invalid now? Are the rule makers making a statement by removing this explanation?

No, they just removed it, likely because there is a limit to the size of the books.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, they just removed it, likely because there is a limit to the size of the books.

Even on Kindle?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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!

I totally agree and why I hate the fact that we have to use an old interpretation to determine what should be listed in the current rulebook and casebook. But with that being said, I do not think this is really that complicated to determine what the rule says. There was no wording IMO that did not make that clear. Actually until this conversation, I did not even realize that anyone would be confused by the intent of the rule or the wording. This could all be cleared up by a casebook play like many other situations and nothing would need to be changed.

Peace

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This could all be cleared up by a casebook play like many other situations and nothing would need to be changed.

I'm not sure it even needs that much. I could fix it by adding three characters to the rules book.

"by the end of the timeout(s)"

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by Altor

I'm not sure it even needs that much. I could fix it by adding three characters to the rules book.

"by the end of the timeout(s)"

Easy enough, totally agree!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

I'm not sure it even needs that much. I could fix it by adding three characters to the rules book.

"by the end of the timeout(s)"

Maybe, but unless something is stated as illegal, it can be done. And nothing in the rulebook says that only one timeout can be used for an injury (and why people responded the way they did). Once again, until I read this OP or situation, I did not think anyone had a real problem understanding the intent when other parts of the rules do not allow of successive timeouts. And there are no restrictions in this area of the rules or under the definition.

Peace

[Altor]

Which is why my fix works. It doesn't fix the rule per se, because the rule doesn't need fixing. It does however give an indication that multiple timeouts are permitted without being long winded about it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

Which is why my fix works. It doesn't fix the rule per se, because the rule doesn't need fixing. It does however give an indication that multiple timeouts are permitted without being long winded about it.

I did not say they could not "fix" the language, just stating that it is not that confusing to most people. Again if the rule does not outlaw something, then it is legal to do so and as usual people like to read too much into rules.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jritchie

Just don't understand why the NFHS does this stuff! They should leave that statement 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!

Welcome to the club. I've been ranting and raving about this for years. However, I understand the reasoning behind this. If the NFHS kept every interpretation of every rule over the past several decades, the casebook would be longer the unabridged version of War and Peace.

Nevadaref has done a wonderful job of cataloging these interpretations, but if he gets hit by an bus, we're out of luck.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Welcome to the club. I've been ranting and raving about this for years. However, I understand the reasoning behind this. If the NFHS kept every interpretation of every rule over the past several decades, the casebook would be longer the unabridged version of War and Peace.

Nevadaref has done a wonderful job of cataloging these interpretations, but if he gets hit by an bus, we're out of luck.

I do not think the book would be that big if they used an original interpretation of a new rule and kept that ruling in the book. Often times these are just one ruling or example that is referenced like Nevada showed on this site. I believe that ruling was from the original rules change that made it clear why they created the rule. There are a lot of plays in the casebook that are self explanatory. If anything you might add a couple of pages.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If anything you might add a couple of pages.

If that were true, and it certainly can be true, then why wouldn't the NFHS publish these interpretations?