I just got back from a discussion on our refresher exam, one question a lot of people had was on a rule about a player who is bleeding and a time out.

A-1 is bleeding and is directed to the bench. Team B calls a timeout. After the time out A-1 is ready to return to the game. The official tells A-1 that he must wait until the next dead ball.

I undersand that this is correct. My question, and that of many others, was, why the big deal over who calls the timeout? The I understand the rule to be that if team A calls the time out, the player may return if ready. Why not if team B calls the time out?

Again, I understand the rule and will enforce it if it comes up but just curious as to the thought process used by the powers that be.

The old rule was that a player had to wait until the next dead ball after time has run on the clock. The new rule is that a player may come back only if his team calls time out. In the question, the other team called time out and not his therefore, he has to wait until time has run off or his team calls a successive time out.

The only thing I can figure is that the feeling is it ought to cost team A, somehow. I don't get it, either, but like you I'll enforce it. "Make it hurt a little" is the only rationale I can figure out.

Don't worry, though. If there's a good reason, Howard Mayo, my commissioner, and a longtime member of the rules committee (until very recently), will let me know, and I'll pass it along to you.

This interpretation makes no sense. The only reason to allow the player to remain when TO is called is because it doesn't cause a delay in the game - the player must be ready to go when the TO ends. The player clearly can't be ready without a TO, so no TO, you have to sub to clean the blood and cover the wound if necessary.

Making the team with the injured player call the TO suggests that it is somehow that team's fault that the player is bleeding. Frequently it is not, so the relationship between who calls it and whether you can keep the player in the game is silly IMO.

Coach, it's not an interpretation, it is the rule as written.

3-6 (and 3-5, injured player) says the timeout must be granted to his/her team, not either team.

I agree with the logic of the interpretation being skewed..Like coach said if it doesn't delay the game the player should be allowed back in, but I do think that Juulie hit it right on the head, A has to buy A1's return with a TO...If I remember right when the rule was added or changed they mentioned that fact that it is unfair to team A to have their stud on the bench because of blood if they have a TO and can rectify the situation..with this interp I think savy coaches from the opposing team with call a TO with the intention of keeping A1 from coming back, which will lead to more interps and maybe a whole new section of rules and exceptions LOL :)

How does this prevent coach B from calling his own timeout?

Anyways, it's pretty simple IMO:

"Coach, number 35 has some blood on his uniform. You need to replace him or call a TO if you want to keep him in. Just be ready at the horn."

I understand why the change was made, and I agree. What I believe occurred is they wrote the rule trying to fix one thing, where they could have written it more generically and had the same effect. They incorporated the strategic TO into the rule, when all that should really need to happen is have a sufficient legitimate stoppage so as to allow the bleeding to stop and the blood to be cleaned. That would occur if either team called the TO before the sub was made. I would anticipate a second rule change to make this rule more generic in the future - it makes no sense as written.