Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Let's Revisit The Medical Time Out Question

In one of our recent posts we posed the question about medical time outs and I think its an issue that perhaps we need to revisit...

SCENARIO

In an ITA men's tournament the player asks for a trainer to come to the court. When the trainer gets there and evaluates the player, he says there is nothing he can do for him.

Should the player be charged with a medical timeout?

OPINIONS

1. Charge the player with a MTO. This view is held by some in Texas and specifically by those who officiate the NCAA tournament. If the trainer is called to the court then the player is charged with the MTO.

2. No MTO is charged. One of our national instructors is credited with saying that a MTO starts when treatment begins. His best quote is, "Evaluation without treatment an MTO does not make."

What do you think???

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Have you considered the fact that this might work another way? I am wondering if anyone else has come across something
exactly the same in the past? Let me know your thoughts...

Anonymous said...

If we go with #2, then I guarantee you that there are division 1 coaches out there who will instruct their players AND trainers to use this to their advantage: player needs to break the momentum in a match they are losing, player will call their school's trainer to the court, they talk for 10-20 seconds, trainer announces there is no treatment available, match continues, player does this again 4-6 games later. They will do this in the middle of a game, at a changeover, at a set break - any time they feel the match is getting away from them. This creates a minimum of 2-4 minutes stoppage of play. And since this is not considered an MTO, there is no limit as to how many times it can be done during a match.

And I - as the chair umpire - will not refuse to call the trainer to the court because I am not a trained medical personnel. Even if it is obvious what they are doing.

This is a bad interpretation of the rule.

Anonymous said...

AS USUAL - it is NOT CLEAR - BUT, page 110 of the FAC says, "A medical timeout consist of evaluation time as determined by the Referee PLUS a maximum of three minutes treatment time." Time out is time out - charge the MTO!

Rule Guru said...

The FAC (USTA Regs III.E.1) states "Medical Timeout. A medical timeout consists of evaluation time as determined by the Referee plus a maximum of three minutes treatment time. The maximum time allowed for evaluation and treatment is 15 minutes."

The rule states that the MTO = Eval + Treat. Without treatment, then the MTO cannot be fully utilized.

The FAC expands on the MTO in USTA Regs III.E.4.a as follows: "Non-treatable medical conditions: A player may not receive a medical timeout or treatment at any time during a match or a warm-up for the following medical conditions:
(a) Any medical condition that cannot be treated appropriately during a match, such as degenerative conditions not helped or eased by on-court treatment."

Based on this rule, if a trainer evaluates a player and determines that he/she cannot be treated, then the MTO should not count.

Hope this helps...

Anonymous said...

Interesting point. But let me add this idea. Why would they only talk for 10 to 20 seconds? The rule says 5 minutes maximum for diagnosis and treatment. Can't they evaluate for 5 minutes and then announce no treatment is available? That would not be a MTO. The player just got 5 minutes to rest and they can go back and play. This could also be repeated. This can't be right.

Anonymous said...

Interesting point. But let me add this idea. Why would they only talk for 10 to 20 seconds? The rule says 5 minutes maximum for diagnosis and treatment. Can't they evaluate for 5 minutes and then announce no treatment is available? That would not be a MTO. The player just got 5 minutes to rest and they can go back and play. This could also be repeated. This can't be right.

Anonymous said...

The national trainers/evaluators do not make the ITA rules nor do they have the authority to decide how these rules will be applied. The ITA Coaches rules committee that meets every December decides on new rules, interpretation and application and they will discuss this rule in December. They make the decision passed through the USTA to everyone.

Anonymous said...

The National Trainers / Evaluators teach the rules based on feedback from the ITA Rules Committee.

The Trainers / Evaluators then pass this information down to the peasant officials. So in a nutshell, they are the experts to go.

Anonymous said...

When the ITA coaches meet, particularly those in the SEC, this will be clarified. However, some points to consider:

Basically, play is to be continuous, re the 20 seconds between points and the 90 seconds for changeovers and 120 seconds for set breaks.

If play is interrupted by a player with the request for a trainer, it is a player's medical timeout. If the trainer is called to the court to evaluate a condition that the player identifies, but cannot be treated, it is a medical timeout because it is an interruption of play initiated by the player for a trainer/medical issue.

If the player is not charged with the MTO BECAUSE the trainer said it was not treatable, it is still interruption of play by a player for medical issues, which is the purpose of the MTO.


If no MTO is charged the players will abuse the delay whenever and the match will devolve into countless interruptions amounting to gamesmanship, and it will be coached by the coaches to delay the match or change momentum.

Division I bathroom breaks were notoriously abused before they were 'banned' as were multiple MTOs for separate conditions.

Anonymous said...

MANY TIMES the trainers are "aware" of situations and i can see this situation being abused - I have to agree with charging a MTO. This is not a question of covering your butt, it is stopping poor gamesmanship.

Enforcer said...

You morons miss the point. We as officials aren't there to interpret rules but rather enforce them. Stop trying to read something into each and every situation. Maybe that's why there isn't any consistency between officials. Too many of you are trying to impose your own wills on the process.

Step back and smell the coffee.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the Enforcer. The problem many officials have is that they are on some kind of power kick and think they know everything. I bet they look in the mirror each and every day and tell themselves "I know I'm God's gift to the officiating world."