Two hurt players situation--How would you handle it
 

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.

Any timeouts available?

You say they got up. Were they in good enough shape to stay in the game?
If so, the offended player can shoot. If there are no available subs, the player having to leave the game does not apply.

They were both good enough to stay in, but at the time it seemed to me that with the coach coming out, a player needed to come out of the game until the next sub opportunity.

Yes, she did have time outs. So should we have had her 'buy' them in with a timeout?

With no bench players, and thus no subs, I think that rule about players having to come out of the game could be waived. Unless A1 was so hurt she could not shoot the shots (in which case the other coach chooses the foul shooter, correct?), I don't think either player should be forced to sit out until the next sub.

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

Yeah, that was something I saw in an NCAA game this year. How would you deal with it on the HS level?

8-2

The free throw(s) awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the offended player. If such player must withdraw because of an injury or disqualification, his/her substitute shall attempt the throw(s) unless no substitute is available, in which case any teammate may attempt the throw(s) as selected by the team captain or head coach.

Peace

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.

How did you handle the situation?

Anytime there's an injured player that has been attended to by the coach or bench personnel, especially towards the end of the game, we've been asked to remind coaches, as a courtesy, of their option to keep the player in by calling a timeout.

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.

Just keep in mind they do not have to come out of the game until someone is beckoned for on the bench (coach or trainer). If you stop the clock and they prop back up, then they can stay in the game. It is not an automatic when you stop the clock they must come out of the game.

Peace

Right, JRut. I should have been more specific. It was not just a stop--it was a stop and the coach was beckoned out. Since two girls were down, and no subs were available, once they got them both up I asked her to pick one to sit until the next sub opportunity. In the heat of the moment, it didn't occur to me to offer her the chance to call a timeout, nor did she ask.

That is fine, it does not happen often or if ever to any of us. I might not have asked the same question on my own either. And coaches should know that rule for their own benefit as well.

Peace

Do you not have a rule/case book?

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.

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.

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.)