player A1 and B1 both have blood on them, you stop play to either get a sub or both coaches must use time out to get their player back in the game if they so wish...do you take those time outs simultaneously or do you give a 2 minute timeout??????

The team that called it first gets the first time-out. Their player has to be ready at the end of THAT time-out. Then I ask the other coach if he/she wants a time-out to keep his/her player in the game. You don't give two time-outs to cover one time-out duration.

Z

I don't think I agree with that Z.

Here's the rule:
<B>Unless a Time-out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play.</B>

To me, that reads that the player must be ready by the time the ball is to be thrown in. If the other team calls a timeout, that first player gets until the end of the second time out.

We shouldn't be makeing a race to see who can get the timeout called first.

The only advantage to be gained is that the team not granted the first timeout gets 1 extra minute to decide if they want to call a timeout or not.

No, this was specifically addressed. The original rule is that you have to be ready to play right away (after injury is tended to or blood is tended to) or you're removed. The exception is that Team A can call a time-out to keep player A1 in the game. If Team B wants to keep B1 in the game, Team B ALSO has to call a time-out. If A called the time-out first, A1 has to be ready at the end of that time-out or they get subbed for. If B1 is ready at the end of Team A's time-out, B1 cannot play. Team B has to take a time-out to keep B1 in the game. If A1 wasn't ready at the end of Team A's time-out, Team A cannot come in at the end of Team B's time-out.

There was some confusion about this in our state so we requested an official interpretation from NFHS and that is what we received.

Z

P.S. I just noticed this clarification on the NFHS website which makes it even more clear:

3-3-6 Note Added a new note clarifying that both teams must request a time-out in order to keep two opposing players in the game that were both directed to leave for injury/blood.

[Edited by zebraman on Sep 22nd, 2004 at 07:58 PM]

I think that if both teams are going to call a TO then both players get the benefit of the two TO...this is a point I would argue with an evaluator, at the risk of being marked down...it is patently unfair to require A1 to be ready after 1 minute and give B1 2 minutes....hopefully it doesn't happen that often....

we brought this up at our state meeting and they said they would get back to us, and of course they never did...but i do agree it wouldn't be fair to one team to have to take the first one and the other team to have 2 minutes to get a player ready to go...this has to be brought up!!! i think they should ask both coaches if they wish to have their player back in the game, if they both say yes, then both be charged a time out and have one time out, and if only one says yes, then still have a time out, but team b's player can't come back in till the clock moves!! that is just my opinion

And just to muddy the waters, I believe that in the NCAA, if A1 and B1 are both directed to leave and then Team A calls a TO, B1 can return to the game if s/he is ready to play by the end of Team A's TO.

I don't think the NCAA requires that player's team to request the TO. AR-13 and AR-14 on page 54 of the '04 rulebook seem to be in direct contradiction. There was a question on the test last year. And since the AR's were confusing, I gave the FED answer and got it wrong.

I believe that any player directed to leave the game (for blood or injury) is allowed to stay in the game if s/he is ready to play at the end of a TO, regardless of which team requested it.

If anybody has better information, I would love to hear it.

Chuck,
Fed answer here...I know last year in order for a player to come back in it had to be on a TO charged to their team... but it makes more sense the other way....wow what a concept that something doesn't make sense with the fed hu....LOL no idea on the NCAA ruling however...

OK!

This year's rulebook- amended and clarified NFHS R3-3-6NOTE- "If players from both teams are directed to leave the game because of injury/blood, both teams must request and be granted a time-out in order to keep each player in the game".

It's also mentioned in the front as a "2004-05 Major Editorial Change"--i.e. "Added a new note clarifying that both teams must request a time-out to keep two opposing players in the game that were both directed to leave for injury/blood".

OK, I'm confused...You notice both players have blood on them. You blow your whistle, notify the coaches who can either sub them right away and continue play or they have to call a time out. Right? If A calls the time out, B benifets (or vise versa) Right?

Disregaurd my last. I just re-read Jurassic's post and answered my own question.

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.

Z

Thanks, JR. Just to be clear then, the NCAA and NF interps are the same now. Correct?

Would it not be much simpler if both the NFHS and NCAA said that the player(s) cannot return to the game until the first opportunity to subsitute after the clock has started. We would not have to worry about who did and did not call a timeout, nor would we have to worry about one timeout starting and then a second timeout starting before the end of the second timeout.

Remember the old adage: KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid.

The rules committees have forgotten KISS.

MTD, Sr.

but what if
 

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

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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

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

Re: but what if
 

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.

Re: Re: but what if
 

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.

Re: Re: but what if
 

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.

maybe it wasn't an accident
 

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