Almost knowing a rule...........
 

is often worse than knowing nothing at all. I went to watch the local high school at a tournament the other night. Last 2 minutes of a close game, the point guard/best player got poked in the eye getting a defensive rebound and doubled over, in obvious distress. The official apparently saw the problem, and as he approached the player signaled timeout. The official stopped next to him and accompanied him slowly to the bench. The coach then signaled and was granted a timeout. The player left for the locker room. I don't know if he had a contact lens issue, or just went to wash it out. Timeout ended, everybody looked expectantly toward the door, 9 players walked back out on the court. The coach then signaled a second timeout. The player then returned. At the end of the second timeout, he walked back out to resume the game, but the official said no, that since there had been an "injury timeout" the player was not allowed to return until after the clock had started.

oops

Man, I hear you about "almost knowing" a rule. I worked a couple low level games with a new official last season, and in the same game, he called 3 seconds on a multiple shot/rebound situation, a 3 seconds while the ball was in the backcourt, and when the offensive team was inbounding from underneath the basket, before the inbounder released the ball? You guessed it, 3 seconds. I cut him some slack since it was his first year, but tough to work with people who don't know the rules.

Did you talk to him about this particular rule?

Oh yes, I not only explained what the rule was, but also why there's no need to call it at all in a 20 point middle school game!! Ha, but you know, his problem at the time (he has since developed his game quite a bit) was that he struggled with situations more than rule interpretations. A 7th grader who is playing only because he is the only 6+ foot kid in the school that doesn't even know what the key is, is not gaining an advantage by having one foot in it on the weak side!

Guess I almost know the rule too.
 

Didn't we recently have a discussion about this topic? I understand the officials is incorrect with his rational that an injury TO was taken, but I thought the player had to be ready by the end of the first timeout. Multiple TOs in a row are legal but for an injury etc. I thought they only had the one timeout to fix the situation.

The Eyes Have It ... ...
 

Once you start the twenty-second replacement interval (it's not a timeout), it is then that the injured player has to sit out a tick.

I believe a coach can burn all five if he wants to keep his player in; even more if he wants to swallow a T as well.

Yes, we recently discussed it and multiple TOs are allowed.

This would fall under "completely not knowing the rule"

I'm a bit confused on this. If the player signaled the timeout and it was granted then why is this considered an injury timeout? Is there a rule/case reference?

If this had happened in one of my games (Not having read this thread), I would have granted the player timeout. When only 4 players returned, I would have asked the coach for his 5th player. Upon hearing that his 5th player was injured, I would have notified him of his option to either take a timeout or start the replacement interval. It sounds like this is wrong?

You'd have to ask the official that did all this. He didn't actually grant the timeout until the coach signaled it. The whole point here is that the situation was mishandled.

okay; I misunderstood the post.