Blood on uniform or players

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by zebraman

As usual, there is still some vagueness in there. But I'm assuming that now NFHS wants us to give a full two-minutes to both teams and that A1 and B1 each have to be ready to play after BOTH time-outs are over. I think that is a much better solution than the previous interpretation.

The way that I understand it, each team will get a full 30 or 60 second TO, whichever one that they requested, and that at the end of that TO, the team that requested that TO must have their player ready to go- or they must substitute or call another, consecutive TO. So if A is awarded the first TO, then the A player must be set to go at the end of that TO. Then B gets their TO, and their player must also be ready to go at the end of their charged TO. Iow, yes, the team getting the second TO will get the advantage of the other team's TO to start getting their player ready, but once they called their TO, they're gonna get charged with it and they gotta take it- even if their player is ready.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 23rd, 2004 at 12:35 PM]

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The way that I understand it, each team will get a full 30 or 60 second TO, whichever one that they requested, and that at the end of the that TO, the team that requested that TO must have their player ready to go- or they must substitute or call another, consecutive TO. So if A is awarded the first TO, then the A player must be set to go at the end of that TO. Then B gets their TO, and their player must also be ready to go at the end of their charged TO. Iow, yes, the team getting the second TO will get the advantage of the other team's TO to start getting their player ready, but once they called the TO, they'r gonna get charged with it and they gotta take it- even if their player is ready.

OK, then nothing has changed because that's how it was explained to us last year.

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jritchie
you are in a national championship game..2 seconds to go, getting ready to inbound the ball, one of team b players scratches an old wound to make it bleed and wipes it on Team A's best player that they know will take the last shot...so with your ruling the best player is out of the game and not able to return, game over...advantage gained by team b.....should that be able to happen...it's hard to keep things simple when you have these smart coaches that try to get around the rules

I don't know if NCAA has an Approved Ruling on this (Chuck?) but the NFHS has a case play on it--3.3.6SitB(d)-- the Team A player must still leave the game, but the B player is charged with a technical foul, and if the calling official thought that the act was flagrant, then the T would be flagrant also. Team A also could still call a TO to keep their player in the game- even if that TO was an excess TO that would cost them a T too. The bottom line is that the "smart" coach is betting that his player won't get caught if he does want to try this.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I don't know if NCAA has an Approved Ruling on this (Chuck?) but the NFHS has a case play on it--3.3.6SitB(d)-- the Team A player must still leave the game, but the B player is charged with a technical foul, and if the calling official thought that the act was flagrant, then the T would be flagrant also. Team A also could still call a TO to keep their player in the game- even if that TO was an excess TO that would cost them a T too. The bottom line is that the "smart" coach is betting that his player won't get caught if he does want to try this.

Not to mention B1 had better sever an artery to make sure the blood he wipes on A1 doesn't dry by the time it's noticed by an official.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
don't know if NCAA has an Approved Ruling on this (Chuck?) but the NFHS has a case play on it--3.3.6SitB(d

There's no AR in the '04 NCAA book (I don't have the '05 yet) about intentionally wiping blood on an opponent, but I would handle exactly the same way as the FED case.

If the rulesmakers decided to take Mark's advice and eliminate the option of taking a TO to keep the player in the game, then I think they'd have to make an exception for a situation in which the official deemed the blood to have been put on the player on purpose -- or make the penalty more severe for such an act.

[jritchie]

there would really be no way to really tell if it was an accident, the kid just simply rubs up against the other and then says opps we both have blood on us!!! really hard to tell it was intentional...so then the TO rule would help in that situation...but i think it should still be a simultaneous timeout...you shouldn't have to take 2 minutes to deal with this problem