Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
This is something that has always bothered me and I'm probably going to submit a proposal to have it changed since in my opinion Team A clearly gains an advantage.
3.3.7 Situation B: A1 discovers she is bleeding and intentionally wipes blood on the arm of the both B4 and B5. In (a) neither the referee or umpire observes the bleeding or the action of A1; (b) U1 observes that A1 is bleeding from a cut on her arm; (c) U1 observes B4 and B5 with blood on their arm; or (d) U1 observes A1 bleeding, and observes A1’s action of wiping blood on the arm of B4 and B5. RULING: In (a), A1 must leave the game when the bleed is discovered; (b) A1 must least the game when bleeding is observed; (c) B4 and B5 must leave the game when blood is observed on their person; (d) A1, B4, B5 must leave the game and, A1 is changed with a technical foul for an unsporting act. If in the judgment of U1 the actions of A1 were flagrant, A1 would be disqualified from further competition. Any player or legally entering substitute may attempt the two free throws, after which B will have the ball for a division line throw-in. In all situations, a team may call time-out to keep a player in the game.
I think B4 and B5 should be allowed to stay in the game without a time-out because of A1's unsporting action.
Also, I don't think there's any judgment about it. If I observe a player intentionally wiping blood on another player they will be ejected.
|
So if A1 and B1 are observed during a live ball with blood on them and the official observes it, play is stopped and each coach must request a timeout to "buy" the player back into the game assuming the blood disappears from their person and the timeouts are served concurrently? I thought each coach must request a timeout to get their player back in. And the timeouts are served concurrently. I'm looking for clarification on this.