Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan
The TO requirement really isn't the part of the rule that prevents the delay of play while the blood is being dealt with, the mandatory removal of the player takes care of that. If the coach of that team calls time out to try to remedy the situation, so be it.
No one is forcing the coach to burn a time out. The coach has an option built into the rule. Either the player comes out immediately or he/she can call time out in an effort to keep them in.
Not removing the blood-affected player, especially in the scenario presented in the OP, gives that player's team an advantage. A1 shows signs/symptoms of a concussion so by rule he/she is told to leave the game but B1 has blood on them/their uniform and by rule they either they have to leave the game or their coach needs to call a time out to try to fix the situation and we choose neither? Common sense is one thing but that's unfair to Team A.
|
Completely disagree.
There is no unfair advantage being given.
The player with symptoms of a concussion needs to be further evaluated by appropriate health care professional. The player with blood does not. Two separate rules there.
Sitch/Question: A coach calls a timeout and as a player is walking to his bench you notice blood on his arm. Are you saying that you will not allow that player to return at the conclusion of the timeout provided that the blood situation has been taken care of?