Two hurt players situation--How would you handle it

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

Had a messy situation tonight. Team A is ahead by one but down to four eligible players with thirty seconds left. A1 is driving while B1 is trying to foul. A2 and A1 collide, simultaneous with a whistle on B1 for a foul. Both A1 and A2 are writhing on the floor in pain. Bench personnel come onto the floor to attend to both players.

Both players eventually get up, after being attended to. A1 is supposed to shoot bonus shots. How would you handle it? A is already playing short one player, but two girls were down hurt and no bench personnel available.

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?"

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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?"

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Someone will need to sit because the coach / trainer came on. There is no disputing that.

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Show me in the rules where this exception exists. The caser play shown above does not indicate this. It indicates that an eligible player from the bench, who otherwise would be required to sit out can come back in as a substitute for an injured player when they otherwise would need to "sit a tick". It does not say that a player forced by rule to leave the game can re-enter without sitting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Show me in the rules where this exception exists. The caser play shown above does not indicate this. It indicates that an eligible player from the bench, who otherwise would be required to sit out can come back in as a substitute for an injured player when they otherwise would need to "sit a tick". It does not say that a player forced by rule to leave the game can re-enter without sitting.

The case play states clearly that a player does not have to "sit a tick" if there are fewer than 6 players available to play. So, if you want to insist the player go to the bench, send him to the bench, and then let him right back in since the case plays says he doesn't have to "sit a tick."

Yes, the scenario is slightly different, but the precedent is clear and the difference in situations is nominal at best.

That said, if you want to insist the coach pick a different shooter in this scenario and play short until the clock properly runs, go right ahead. It's not a situation likely to occur more than 2 or 3 times in your career. But how you handle it could actually affect your career.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

The case play states clearly that a player does not have to "sit a tick" if there are fewer than 6 players available to play. So, if you want to insist the player go to the bench, send him to the bench, and then let him right back in since the case plays says he doesn't have to "sit a tick."

Yes, the scenario is slightly different, but the precedent is clear and the difference in situations is nominal at best.

That said, if you want to insist the coach pick a different shooter in this scenario and play short until the clock properly runs, go right ahead. It's not a situation likely to occur more than 2 or 3 times in your career. But how you handle it could actually affect your career.

Exactly. Don't be that guy. The case play may not specifically cover that exact situation, but sometimes it's better to play with the rulebook rather than have it bronzed and on a pedestal. (Sorry, that's another thread.)