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.

So what would define a reasonable amount of time? So vague if you ask me. I have never seen this happen, and glad that's the case.

It's vague, but the standard is the same whether or not a trainer comes onto the floor.

Sometimes you just need to officiate.

i kinda think you'll know it when you see it . . . I also think it is the kind of thing that people actually tend to be pretty reasonable about.

NCAAW 3-6-3a says you have 20 seconds to deal with a lost, irritated or displaced contact lens. Otherwise you need a sub or a TO. Interesting that the NCAAW rules committee has sort of defined what a reasonable timeframe is for this issue. NCAAM and NFHS are more subjective with what is "reasonable."

Anyone know this history behind this rules nuance in the NCAAW book?

Unfortunately in basketball there are often times when "reasonable" is in short supply.

The lack of frequency here renders the concerns moot, IMO. If it starts to happen regularly, I think the NFHS would be more than willing to get a heavy hand.

Beckoned ...
 

Even if the coach is beckoned, and, for whatever reason, he doesn't come out onto the court attend to the injured player, he still has to take the player out, or request, and be granted, a timeout.

Less Than Five Players ???
 

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.

I remember back in the 90s "that guy" saying, right after 'black line all the way around'... 'if one of you loses a contact tell us and we will stop the game'.

double check that Billy. substitution rule says beckoned AND comes onto the court. if kid goes down hard, you immediately beckon the coach but coach hesitates for a few seconds...kid pops up ready to play he can stay in. fact that you beckoned him doesnt mean he has to come out. at least by the wording of the rule.

i agree if what you mean is player just doesnt shake it off and isnt ready to play fairly soon. we can say to the coach we need a replacement because he just isnt ready in time. thx

i think you may be right. i wasnt thinking about a 4 player issue etc. since you were, you get to look it up. let me know when you get a chance. thx

The case book says otherwise:

Or ...
 

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.

With A Little Help From My Friends (Joe Cocker, 1968) ...
 

(I know that it's a Beatles song, but this cover is classic)

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?

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...

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 As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore (Networtk, 1976) ... ...
 

(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 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.

Kill The Messanger ???
 

(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.)

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.

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

Play With Five Edict ...
 

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?

What's The Matter With Kids Today (Bye Bye Birdie, 1960) ...
 

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.

Sometimes You Don't Have To Sit A Tick ...
 

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?

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.