Contacts
 

In the process of getting fouled, a contact gets dislodged out of A1's eye. A1 finds the contact. The trainer enters the court without being beckoned to offer a saline solution to A1 to clean the contact. A1 denies. Or A1 accepts the saline solution to clean the contact.
Does A1 need to be replaced in either situation?

5-11-4a.

is the timeout rule. if you stop the game or the player actually asks for timeout because of contacts issue or glasses issue, the rule says you do not charge that timeout to the team. the player is given a "reasonable" time to resolve the situation. the fact that the trainer comes out doesnt affect it if the player has only a contact issue. imo
how much time is reasonable--have to be there-i dont think it is a set number.

In our area of Virginia, trainers work for the school. The home school provides a trainer on site to assist with injuries for both teams. They usually do not sit on the team bench, so cannot be categorized as bench personnel. If they run onto the court, it's not like a coach or assistant coming on the floor.

As the previous post said, it the situation can be resolved quickly, I say play on with no time out assessed to the team, nor the player having to be substituted for.

Accepting or rejecting the trainer's assistance would be irrelevant to the answer either way.

And It's The Blue Line All The Way Around ...
 

Back in the olden days, when contact lenses first became popular, I remember a few officials who, during the pregame captains meeting, asking if any players wore contact lenses, and then putting a mark next to those names in the book. I never saw the point of this, if a player was going to gain an advantage by lying about a displaced contacts, then why wouldn't a captain lie about a player wearing contact lenses (a designated contact lens wearer, à la Charles O. Finley), all orchestrated by a devious coach?

Hmmmm...
True enough -- 5-11-4 EXCEPTION a deals with whether or not to issue a timeout for a contact lens dysfunction. However, the original post asked if the guy needing lens service should be replaced with a substitute because personnel came off the bench to provide such service.
Let me stab:
It appears the rules do not address this issue.
If such assistance is rendered for what you consider an "injury", then 3-3-6 requires a sub. If not considered it an "injury", then no sub required.
Either way there doesn't seem to be rules support.
Err on the side of common sense.

I'm just glad that one of my contacts have never come out. I have big hands and putting a contact in without a mirror is pretty much impossible for me.

thx Freddy,

i think its covered, think about it this way. if player sprains an ankle, trainer/coach comes onto court we know player has to be replaced OR team call timeout to keep him in game. coach/team trainer on floor =replace or timeout. no exception applies there. coach says i want keep him in game so he gets and is charged timeout. player plays on if he is ready by end of the timeout. the timeout allows player to stay in game even though coach and trainer came onto floor. cures the issue of coach/trainer coming onto floor.

now the contact exception- you stop game cause contacts. coach trainer comes out. normal rule says to cure that and keep kid in game team has to call timeout. but since it is contacts/lenses the exception to rule applies. We don't charge the timeout to team. thx

If any personnel has to come on the court to aid a player the kid's getting a sub or a TO to keep the kid on the court. Keeps it simple and I don't need the rules to cover every singly possible scenario to make a decision here. Common sense.

*Well this is why we have discourse on this web--to deliberate on the "gray area" issues that inhere with our hoop game. As one poster said, it could be a "clever ruse", as another said it could have been "legitimate". The verbatim application of 3-3-6 vs. 5-11-4 balanced with common sense---each situation is context specific--how much time is required to re-insert a contact lens, how much time is too much--how much is too little--coaches use the time to meet with their team, it's all very context-specific no?

IMO, it's not.

I'd argue common sense goes the other way in this scenario and see no reason not to allow for the contact exception expressed in the rules.

I agree.

If the contact comes out, there's no way I'm putting mine back in without rinsing with saline. And, since I normally don't carry that with me on the court, I have to have a visit from the trainer.

So, I'm allowing a "reasonable time" to correct without penalty.

An uncharged time-out is allowed by the rules in this specific situation, so the player may remain in the game.

Rule treats contacts/glasses differently than injuries. A quick fix is best, even if it requires a trainer with a bottle of saline. I'm not going to go looking for trouble.