Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
You are making things up. You've somehow determined that the game ceases to exist when the ball is dead. It's a novel concept and one I'm fairly sure you're only using in regards to winning this argument.
Once an referee discovers blood, the rule is clear: a TO must be used in order for the player to remain in the game.
|
What you call making things up I call applying the rule intelligently. You and others, even the majority, here can disagree. That's ok.
FWIW I asked two different interpreters and got two different answers so the rule is not as crystal clear as you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
And when B uses it's last timeout (the one you let them keep) to set up a play to score the winning goal and A's HC comes unglued causing you to have to toss him and the whole thing ends up in front of an appeals committee, is it still going to be good game management?
Good game management starts by applying the rules which have no leeway correctly. This isn't a judgement call; you don't have a choice other than to "not notice" before B gets a chance to take care of it. But once you've noticed, you're bound by the rule.
|
By the same token, you can look at the situation, which I proposed in post #35 and nobody answered:
"Officials stop the game with 30 seconds left in the 4th quarter to tend to a clock issue. As both teams walk to the area in front of their bench you notice A1 has blood on his elbow. While officials are still tending to the clock issue A1's trainer stops bleeding and puts a bandage on the elbow."
Are you going to make team B use their last timeout in this situation, or even if they have no timeouts, to allow their player to stay in the game? Pretty sure the HC is going to come unglued here as well (even more so than in your scenario).