RealGM

Read the CBA FAQ, and couldn't find one answer:

Does an injured player (Yao, for instance), whose team has gotten an exception due to his health, still take up a roster spot?

(Sorry. That was wordy.)

Will Yao count as a roster spot this year?

Thanks.

Yes.

Sham wrote:Yes.

Thanks.

Where should I look for "legal" confirmation/link?

Well, you may not be able to find anywhere that says that Yao will still take up a roster spot, but show me somewhere where it says he wouldn't. If there was an exception to be made for such DPE-worthy players, it would be explicitly written in. But, as you've seen, it isn't.

The DPE is in the CBA here; http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-VII_6.php

Teams can apply for an exemption from roster limits in injury situations. There are no publicly listed criteria that I know of as to when they can be asked for or what it takes for them to be granted. Given the way the NBA operates sometimes, it may be entirely arbitrary.

My thanks to you both.

FGump wrote:Teams can apply for an exemption from roster limits in injury situations. There are no publicly listed criteria that I know of as to when they can be asked for or what it takes for them to be granted. Given the way the NBA operates sometimes, it may be entirely arbitrary.

I had forgotten about that. The Raps got two, 6 months apart, years back when they had 4 players (all different both times) out with mid to long-term injuries. So I suspect four guys in suits for a bunch of games is a pretty good indication that your team can get one.

Which is good new for Houston, as they're already as good as half way there with TMac and Yao.

FGump wrote:Teams can apply for an exemption from roster limits in injury situations. There are no publicly listed criteria that I know of as to when they can be asked for or what it takes for them to be granted. Given the way the NBA operates sometimes, it may be entirely arbitrary.

Actually it's not arbitrary at all. Of the 173 lawyers in the league office, three have been cross-trained as radiologists by attending a year-long course at a noted medical school on the island of Grenada. These three review relevant MRIs, Cat Scans, Pet Scans, X-Rays, etc and reach a decision. A unanimous vote of the three is required before an exception is granted.

Dunk, I didn't say an injury exception may be arbitrary. I was speaking of an EXEMPTION from roster limits, a very different concept. I doubt these doctor-lawyers are the ones making the decisions on whether a team is allowed to raise roster limits beyond 15.

FGump wrote:Dunk, I didn't say an injury exception may be arbitrary. I was speaking of an EXEMPTION from roster limits, a very different concept. I doubt these doctor-lawyers are the ones making the decisions on whether a team is allowed to raise roster limits beyond 15.

I'm sure they don't make any decisions, since they are figments of my warped sense of humor (or humour as Sham would now likely say).

Dunkenstein wrote:

FGump wrote:Actually it's not arbitrary at all. Of the 173 lawyers in the league office, three have been cross-trained as radiologists by attending a year-long course at a noted medical school on the island of Grenada. These three review relevant MRIs, Cat Scans, Pet Scans, X-Rays, etc and reach a decision. A unanimous vote of the three is required before an exception is granted.

Good heavens - that sounds pretty frightening, or at least it would if had something to do with patient care, rather than just legal decision making.

I guess an intelligent lawyer could pick up some basics in a year of training...
But a fellowship in musculoskeletal radiology takes 1 year, and that is following a 4 year residency, 1 year of internship, and 4 years of medical school. Add in the undergrad pre-med curriculum that a lawyer probably didn't have, that would be about 2 years worth...we're talking about 12 years of education condensed into 1 year to cross train this ''lawyer-radiologist''.

It's scary enough that cardiologists and doctors in other specialties often will take a week or weekend long course and start reading some types of studies.

But as I said, making some decisions about roster exceptions is a lot lower stakes than actually caring for patients. Malpractice lawyers trying to interpret studies is a much more frightening idea.

So I suppose a 1 year course could give a lawyer a decent idea what they are looking at, especially if the radiologist's report is there for them to refer to.

''noted medical school in Grenada'' is a funny idea though. As is the idea of the lawyers looking at cat scans, and pet scans (I guess if a guy had lymphoma or something...)