Contacts

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

3-3-6: A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any
other bench personnel is beckoned and/or comes onto the court shall be directed
to leave the game, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team
and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

my 2014/15 ipad rules and paper rules dont have the "and/or." they simply say AND. the casebook play Camron cited, which has the coach trainer running onto the floor, certainly does...

i've said it before so i have to say it now...preface in case book says...case book plays are "supplement to the rules, approved by the rules committee, official." the law until overturned...

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The case book says otherwise:

i have random rule books lying around. in the 1999 book the Rule is 3-3-5 and it says "beckoned and/or" as opposed to just AND as it says now. In the 2007/08 rule book it also has and/or. im not sure when the rule was changed but the /or was removed. the 2013/14 rule also says AND. They likely changed the rule wording and forgot to change case play wording....or changed rule wording by mistake.....

if the player is ready in the example i gave and the coach doesn't want to come out i'm not going to make the player leave or burn a TO because i waived my arm early....thx

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

my 2014/15 ipad rules and paper rules don't have the "and/or." they simply say AND. the casebook play Camron cited, which has the coach trainer running onto the floor, certainly does... i've said it before so i have to say it now...preface in case book says...case book plays are "supplement to the rules, approved by the rules committee, official." the law until overturned...

(Question: Why doesn't the shift key on your keyboard work?)

Good catch BigCat. The change in the rulebook was made in 2013-14.

3-3-6: A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench
personnel is beckoned and comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a
time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end
of the time-out.

3.3.6 SITUATION B: A1 appears to be injured and an official properly halts play and the Team A coach rushes onto the court to check A1. However, A1 is OK and seems ready to play within a few seconds. RULING: A1 must be removed as the coach came onto the court. A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately. If the coach or other bench personnel have come onto the court, the player must be replaced. There is no set amount of time as to what is “immediately,” but it should not involve more than a few seconds and it must be without the coach, athletic trainer or doctor being beckoned and/or entering the court. The coach may also call a time-out to keep the player in the game provided the replacement interval for the substitution has not begun. (10-4-2)

Yet another example of an announced rule change by the NFHS. This is the first that I've heard of this change. Why does the NFHS keep doing this? They should, at least, announce this as an editorial change. Instead, they like to play, "How Is The Photo On The Left Different Than The Photo On The Right?". When will the NFHS realize that basketball isn't a game. Wait? I'm being told ... What? Are you sure? Never mind.

To make matters worse, we have the unintended consequence of the change not showing up in the casebook.

Why does the NFHS accept such incompetence from its basketball committee? Does this happen in other sports?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

i have random rule books lying around. in the 1999 book the Rule is 3-3-5 and it says "beckoned and/or" as opposed to just AND as it says now. In the 2007/08 rule book it also has and/or. im not sure when the rule was changed but the /or was removed. the 2013/14 rule also says AND. They likely changed the rule wording and forgot to change case play wording....or changed rule wording by mistake.....

if the player is ready in the example i gave and the coach doesn't want to come out i'm not going to make the player leave or burn a TO because i waived my arm early....thx

I'm slow to beckon. I have even put a hand up and tried to hold the coach back a second (not long) if I think the player can recover so the coach isn't forced to choose between a sub and a TO.

If I've beckoned the coach, I'm following the rule whether he comes out or not.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

If I've beckoned the coach, I'm following the rule whether he (coach) comes out or not.

(Note: My parenthesis added above.)

Just beckoned? Which rule? The rule as noted in the rulebook? Or the rule as noted in the casebook?

(Sorry Adam. I'm not mad at you, and I shouldn't take it out on you, but I'm still pissed at the stupid NFHS. Really pissed.)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm slow to beckon. I have even put a hand up and tried to hold the coach back a second (not long) if I think the player can recover so the coach isn't forced to choose between a sub and a TO.

If I've beckoned the coach, I'm following the rule whether he comes out or not.

i think we are trying to figure out the exact rule. it used to be in the rule book and/or. if you did either player replaced or TO. case book was same. now rule book says beckoned AND enters. case book not changed. Is it a mistake in the rule book or did they announce a change as Billy suggested and just forget to change the case book? we know that happens from time to time.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Question: Why doesn't the shift key on your keyboard work?)

Good catch BigCat. The change in the rulebook was made in 2013-14.

3-3-6: A player who has been injured to the extent that the coach or any other bench
personnel is beckoned and comes onto the court shall be directed to leave the game, unless a
time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end
of the time-out.

3.3.6 SITUATION B: A1 appears to be injured and an official properly halts play and the Team A coach rushes onto the court to check A1. However, A1 is OK and seems ready to play within a few seconds. RULING: A1 must be removed as the coach came onto the court. A1 may remain in the game if the coach does not come on the court and A1 is ready to play immediately. If the coach or other bench personnel have come onto the court, the player must be replaced. There is no set amount of time as to what is “immediately,” but it should not involve more than a few seconds and it must be without the coach, athletic trainer or doctor being beckoned and/or entering the court. The coach may also call a time-out to keep the player in the game provided the replacement interval for the substitution has not begun. (10-4-2)

Yet another example of an announced rule change by the NFHS. This is the first that I've heard of this change. Why does the NFHS keep doing this? They should, at least, announce this as an editorial change. Instead, they like to play, "How Is The Photo On The Left Different Than The Photo On The Right?". When will the NFHS realize that basketball isn't a game. Wait? I'm being told ... What? Are you sure? Never mind.

To make matters worse, we have the unintended consequence of the change not showing up in the casebook.

Why does the NFHS accept such incompetence from its basketball committee? Does this happen in other sports?

i'm sorry about the shift key. (I just did it again) Lazy.....trying to type too fast....I will work at it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

... coach/team trainer on floor = replace or timeout. no exception applies

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There may be an exception when having to play with less than five players? I'm not 100% sure, and I'm too tired to look it up. Overtime game tonight.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I know that the "five player rule" trumps the "sit a tick rule", but I'm still not sure if it trumps the "sit, or take a time out rule"? Does it matter if there are no timeouts available? How about a little help here guys?

Thanks for the help (below) BillyMac. Your superior intelligence is only exceeded by you strikingly handsome good looks.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 5: Team A is playing with five players, but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-5)

Note to rookies. There are situations, not involving the injured player, but involving an injury, where the "play with five rule" does trump the "sit a tick rule". There is either a caseplay, or an annual interpretation, that involves the live ball (stopped clock) time between free throws where a player gets injured, and the only substitute on the bench hasn't yet sat a tick. I believe that the ruling is that the substitute that hadn't sat his tick can legally enter the game to fulfill the "play with five rule".

How about a little help on this one guys?

Note: What a great way to increase my post count (answering my own question).

What's the rank above Esteemed Forum Member?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

i'm sorry about the shift key. (I just did it again) Lazy.....trying to type too fast....I will work at it.

Kids today? Can't live with them, can't live without them. My kids have the same keyboard problems, their shift keys don't work.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Note to rookies. There are situations, not involving the injured player, but involving an injury, where the "play with five rule" does trump the "sit a tick rule". There is either a caseplay, or an annual interpretation, that involves the live ball (stopped clock) time between free throws where a player gets injured, and the only substitute on the bench hasn't yet sat a tick. I believe that the ruling is that the substitute that hadn't sat his tick can legally enter the game to fulfill the "play with five rule".

How about a little help on this one guys?

My game got postponed today (a few inches of snow), so I might as well amuse myself, on this boring afternoon, by answering my own questions.

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)

I knew that there was a reason for, "with rare exceptions", appearing on the Misunderstood Rule List:

A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game, shall not re-enter (with rare exceptions) before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his, or her, replacement. In other words, a player who has been replaced must sit a tick of the clock, however, a player doesn't have to play a tick of the clock.

Now, where are my car keys?

[Zoochy]

SO after reading ALL of the replies, I am still not sure of the ruling.
This trainer was not asked to come onto the court. What if the player was from the visiting team and the trainer was from the home team?
A1 was not injured. I am still leaning towards allowing the player to stay in the game without charging a time out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

SO after reading ALL of the replies, I am still not sure of the ruling.
This trainer was not asked to come onto the court. What if the player was from the visiting team and the trainer was from the home team?
A1 was not injured. I am still leaning towards allowing the player to stay in the game without charging a time out.

You may not get 100% agreement, but I think this is the right course of action.