Contacts

[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.