Two hurt players situation--How would you handle it

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

Basically, I told the coach that we stopped for injury so somebody was coming out. She left A1 in to shoot the free throw, and after the first free throw was made put A2 back in the game.

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No, the other coach doesn't get to choose the free throw shooter unless they are playing by NCAA rules.

NCAA-M only.

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[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?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

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.

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.

[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.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

To what extent?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BLydic

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."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BLydic

I don't think you can waive the substitution for injury based on the depth of the bench. By rule, the players were attended to and need to be substituted out of the game.

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)

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BLydic

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.

[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.