If the player is directed to leave the game, she is not allowed back in until after the clock has run, so this is really kind of pointless.

NCAA-M only.

Agreed. The girl came to the table and my partner waved her in. I didn't want to make an issue of it, especially with them already playing short on numbers.

My opinion
 

This is going to sound harsh, but at least one, if not both players shall leave the game.

What your question does not say is if the coach/trainer attended to just one of, or both of the team A players. If both were attended to, then both need to leave the game. The team captain/coach would then be allowed to choose who will take the free throws in replacement of A1, assuming she was attended to.

With all of that said, I would be making sure both players were actually attended to, and the coach/trainer didn't attend to one and just simple ask the other "Are you ok?"

I believe there's a case play or interp that suggests playing with 5 (or as close to it as possible) trumps the rule about needing to "sit a tick." I would use the same philosophy for an injury in this situation.

I don't know if I agree with that. What's the line between 'attending to' and checking if they're OK? That seems like a grey area to me. Whether a coach/trainer has been called out on the other hand is not. But it's a valid question, and one that somebody asked us after the game--why didn't both have to sit out a play? I don't see it as my role as a ref to determine the amount of attending that took place. The more I think about it, I should have strongly suggested the time out.

You'll need some rules basis to back this up. If you beckon a coach, it doesn't matter if they attended to the player or not.

To what extent?

If a team is down to 5 or fewer players, and one gets hurt to the point where I beckon a coach. Unless I'm told or find something different in the rules, I'm not forcing the player to "sit a tick."

Agree.

Tick Tock ...
 

A player doesn't always have to sit a tick:

8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s
first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces
B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for
A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3
in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to
immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order
to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still
not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game
and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced
since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

While there's a difference between a substitution due to injury and a substitute having to sit a tic, I appreciate you posting the caseplay.

Like I said, the case play indicates that the need for 5 players (or as close to it as possible) trumps at least one other rule (the need to sit a tick). Unless the Fed, IAABO, my association's rules interpreter, or my assigner (in that order) explicitly say otherwise, I'm going with the philosophy that this concept applies to injuries as well.

It's such a rare occurrence, I'm not overly concerned though. If someone else handles it differently, I won't lose any sleep.

Someone will need to sit because the coach / trainer came on. There is no disputing that. The issue becomes were the called onto the court to attend to just one of the players or to both players. If I see one is potentially more seriously injured and the other is less seriously injured, I am bringing the coach out for the more seriously injured player first and ignoring the less injured player. This is no different than first aid for an accident victim. If you have two people injured in a car accident and one is squirting blood from a cut in their leg, and the other just has cuts from broken glass that are bleeding, but not squirting I am getting help for / helping the more seriously injured person first.

In basketball, I am always having the coach come on for the more seriously injured person first. If this allows the lesser injured player more time to recover, so be it. I'm not forcing both to sit unless both get medical assistance from the coach / trainer.

Actually, there is.

There is precedent discarding some substitution rules (sit-a-tick, for one) when there are 5 or fewer available players/subs. I don't believe it is that far of a stretch to say that the same exception should apply to an injured player who is attended to. The rule that says there must be 5 players if there are 5 available trumps the various sit-out rules. If taking the injured player out would leave a team with fewer than 5 players, the get to stay in.