Blood Rule???

[splitveer]

A one point game late in the 3rd quarter. A1 is fouled by B1 and goes to the line to shoot 2 Free throws. Before the foul shots blood is seen on A1 jersey and B1 has a bloody lip.

We decided to give time to get jersey changed for A1 and B1 to get his lip taken care of. This did not take a lot of time. Now, I realize the rule states that players must leave the floor for Blood, and can be brought back in the game with a timeout. But since both players were key players on each team we decided to handle it in a different way and let them stay without the charged timeout. Neither team was gaining an advantage or disadvantage based on the rule as we saw it.

Was this bad game management since we disregarded the rule, or was this appropriate based on the situation? OK fellas, let me have it!

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by splitveer

But since both players were key players on each team we decided to handle it in a different way and let them stay without the charged timeout.

I wasn't aware we were allowed to judge who the "key players" are.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by splitveer

But since both players were key players on each team we decided to handle it in a different way and let them stay without the charged timeout.

There is 1 set of rules for all players. It would be best to adopt that POV.

[ODog]

Yeah, not good.

Next time it happens in a different game, coach says, "We didn't have to take a timeout last game to keep him in."

The officials who are now being disserved by this ill-informed coach don't have the backstory that "it was the key players" and "there was one from each team" and "it didn't take a lot of time." And none of that matters anyway.

Live and learn.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by splitveer

A one point game late in the 3rd quarter. A1 is fouled by B1 and goes to the line to shoot 2 Free throws. Before the foul shots blood is seen on A1 jersey and B1 has a bloody lip.

We decided to give time to get jersey changed for A1 and B1 to get his lip taken care of. This did not take a lot of time. Now, I realize the rule states that players must leave the floor for Blood, and can be brought back in the game with a timeout. But since both players were key players on each team we decided to handle it in a different way and let them stay without the charged timeout. Neither team was gaining an advantage or disadvantage based on the rule as we saw it.

Was this bad game management since we disregarded the rule, or was this appropriate based on the situation? OK fellas, let me have it!

I'd follow the rule 100% of the time.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by splitveer

Neither team was gaining an advantage or disadvantage based on the rule as we saw it.

Your punishment should be having to do a game with your partners from the previous game and come together on every call to see if the above applies. If it doesn't, PLAY ON! But make sure to keep blowing your whistles on the actual rules.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by splitveer

Neither team was gaining an advantage or disadvantage based on the rule as we saw it.

Neither team is gaining an advantage if you follow the rule, either.

That said, I do prefer the NCAAW (at least) rule where a team gets 20 seconds to clean it up before needing a TO or a sub.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by splitveer

Neither team was gaining an advantage or disadvantage based on the rule as we saw it.

Mebbe, mebbe not. One team might have had an advantage because it decided to use a TO and the other did not. One might have had an advantage later because the other ran out of TOs. Neither might have used a timeout and one team better off from its sub.

The rules could have an exception for when players from both teams are affected. But they don't. Making up rules is dangerous.

[APG]

Let's just put it this way...

If you decided to ignore and set aside/misapply a rule like you did in an NBA game, your game check would be a lighter by the end of the night.