Injured Player/Successive Time Outs
 

I have a question regarding a discussion that we had last night in our meeting. It involves a coach using successive timeouts to have his injured player allowed to stay in the game.

If A1 is injured and the coach request a TO and is granted a TO, A1 is allowed to return as long as he is ready to play at the conclusion of the TO. The discussion last night centered around whether the head coach could call a second TO after the first TO if he thought that A1 needed more time to return ----- successive TO's?
Some guys believe that he is allowed ONLY one TO for A1 to be ready to return to play and if he is not ready to play, then he must be substituted for ---- thus not granting a second TO? I can't find a specific ruling on that and want appreciate your clarification.

A player can use as many timeouts that they have in order to get their player into the game. No rules restriction that it only applies to one timeout. Not very likely as timeouts are valuable, but they can call multiple ones legally except when OT is involved.

Peace

Thanks JR ..... that was my thought as well but I wanted to get some more clarification!

Successive Time Outs ???
 

Fourth period, 0:00 on clock, game hasn't ended?

Most made up rules cannot be found. 5-12-3

Jeff's opinion is great but it is still just the opinion of an anonymous internet dude. It's not going to carry much weight if you work a game with one of those guys and the situation comes up.

More useful is knowing the exact rule(s) that would cover this situation and being on the ready with input.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

I do totally agree with you BTW.

Peace

Right, Jeff worded it slightly incorrectly, in that OT really isn't a factor; but the expiration of time in the fourth quarter or OT is what prevents successive TOs.

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.

Well that does involve OT, it just is not the actual wording of the rule, that is true. Then again something told me that folks would point this out. ;)

Peace

:D

It's what we do around here.

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.

Further Clarification Needed ???
 

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.

A Better Value For Your Money ...
 

Yep, it's the new, improved, never off topic threads, never off topic posts, never off topic images, never off topic videos, Basketball Forum, with 50% more fact checkers, and a new easy to use format. And it comes with a money back guarantee.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...0e1ff426706a0d

two separate rules, one purpose
 

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)

Almost Agree ...
 

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.

Largely irrelevant though.

A1 is injured. Coaches requests TO. A1 is not really ready, but coach says she is. Ok, let's continue with A1... then coach requests another TO. Boom - A1 gets another TO to "be more ready". If at the end of any subsequent TO A1 is still not really ready, the coach can just say that the pain came back and present A6. Let A6 in and continue.

That certainly might work in some situations; but if the player still has a shoe off getting his/her ankle taped we obviously are not going to let the player hobble on the floor with one shoe and then grant another TO. And it wouldn't work either with a bleeding player or player with blood on the jersey that obviously hasn't been corrected by the end of the time-out. Just my opinion based on what I believe the rule is saying.

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?

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

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.

Sans Injury
 

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?
<O:p</O:p

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.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
So let’s just eliminate the step of having the teams report back to the floor before calling the second timeout.

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).

Great Rule Exercise Today
 

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?

There's already a rule in place to prevent this.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Does This Add Anything to It?
 

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?

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.

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.

Inconceivable.

:p

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!

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.

I would love to see that citation, because it would pretty much contradict the rules as written now. Which wouldn't really surprise me...

For the record we were given an interpretation in my state (not sure if it came only from our bosses) that we were to allow as many timeouts as needed to allow the player to come back into the game after multiple timeouts if need be. So actually there is a little more than an opinion in my situation, but listen to your local people to do what would be accepted in your area.

Peace

And I agree with this interpretation. If a team wants to use multiple timeouts in succession to buy a player back in, I don't see why there should be a rule to limit that. Like tref mentioned, I think it's obvious that NFHS' intent is to allow a team to "buy" a player back in on their time rather than just "free" dead ball time.

Here you go...:)

From the 2002-03 NFHS Rules Book on page 70 and also appearing on page 3 of the 2002-03 NFHS Case Book:

Comments on the 2002-03 Rules Revisions

Player with blood or injury may remain in game with a time-out (3-3-5 & 6): This change permits a player who is required to leave the game for blood or injury to remain in the game if the team calls a time-out (60 or 30-second) and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out. Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain. The previous rule had a potentially tremendous impact on the game when a player had blood on the uniform or body (which may not even have been their own) and was required to leave late in the game, without the ability to immediately return. Under this new rule, if a team desires to utilize a time-out and can rectify the situation by the time the ball will be put back in play, the affected player may remain in the game.


*I also found an NFHS interpretation from that same season which states that a team may take an excessive time-out if it so desires in order to keep an injured or bleeding player in the game.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

Publisher’s Note:
The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.
Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2002


SITUATION 6: In the last 30 seconds of a game, a player from each team has blood on the uniform. Team A has a time-out remaining and Team B does not. RULING: If the officials direct both players to leave the game, both teams must call a time-out to keep the respective players in the game. The player for Team B must leave the game since his/her team is out of time-outs. COMMENT: Team B could call an excessive time-out resulting in a technical foul to keep the player in the game. (3-3-6)

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).

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!

Thanks, Nevada...good find.


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

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

Not The Classics Illustrated Comic Version ...
 

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

Page Limit ???
 

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

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!

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

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

I agree that if the rules don't outlaw it, then it is permissible. However, since we have 4 pages of posts on this rule, it's obvious that this is NOT as obvious as you think.

The main thing people pointed to in the rules to give their opinion any backing is the singular "timeout." Three extra characters fixes that, doesn't substantially change the rule, and doesn't require two extra paragraphs in the case book.

We have had more pages for even more obvious situations and rules. Do not let the nature of this conversation be the gauge of what people really think. Rules makers are not going to include every possible situation no matter the rule. Again I have yet to see anyone in real life stop anyone from calling multiple timeouts. Better yet, I have yet to see a coach even try to call multiple timeouts for that purpose. It is even rare for a coach to call a timeout at all for this purpose, even when I have given them the option.

Peace

Very nice! Thank you.

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.

The Digital Age ...
 

Even on Kindle?