Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by RecRef
Attended our state refresher yesterday. A question came-up about the new blood rule that got me thinking along the lines of the ref that brought it up.
Situation: A1 is bleeding and some of the blood gets on the jersey of B1. Coach A decides to take A1 out of the game and does not call a timeout. Coach B wants to keep B1 in the game, as he is the teamsÂ’ best player and time is running out... Team B is now penalized by having to use one of its timeouts to keep him in. Or worse yet, team B may be out of timeouts and the only way to keep B1 is to request a TO and receive a T for doing so.
I hope that this is revisited next year.
|
Even if Coach A decides to keep A1 in the game (by calling a TO), B still has to call a TO to keep B in the game.
The rule change is only intended to give teams an option they didn't have last year (last year B1 would have to come out of the game).
You might ahve a point that we should only penalize the "bleeder" and not those who are affected by the blood. But, that's a change to the old (and still existing) rule, not a problem caused by the new rule.
|
Bob...this is similar to the sitch we were discussing in a previous post.
I stated that if Team A calls a time-out and the official notices blood on B1 as he exits the floor...if Coach B wants to keep B1 in the game he would have to be charged a time-out. Therefore both teams would be charged a time-out.
You stated last year you would have just let B1 get "cleaned" up during A's time-out and let him return after the time-out.
You may have a point there...but, with the new rule concerning blood it requires a time-out, by his own team, before he can return.
RD