Buy-in Time out

[altus]

We were told at our State Meeting last night, that if the official sees the blood and stops the game, a time out will not buy their way back into the game. The only way a time out will work is when the player notices the blood and asked for the time out, first. Does that sound right?

[jritchie]

the way that was explained last night is the only way you can use a 30 is if you don't have a full left!!!I guess that is why it says "can use a 60 or 30" one coach can not pick a full and the other just use a 30 if they both want their players in, unless the coach does not have the full to use. That is just what was said last night by the commissish!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by altus
We were told at our State Meeting last night, that if the official sees the blood and stops the game, a time out will not buy their way back into the game. The only way a time out will work is when the player notices the blood and asked for the time out, first. Does that sound right?

That sounds like it's completely contrary to the rules as written. See NFHS casebook play 3.3.6- in that play, the players are directed by the officials to leave the game, but can come right back in by using a TO. That's completely different than what your state was telling you.

Bottom line, as always though, is to do what your state tells you to do. I'd check back on this one though.

[mick]

Originally posted by altus
We were told at our State Meeting last night, that if the official sees the blood and stops the game, a time out will not buy their way back into the game. The only way a time out will work is when the player notices the blood and asked for the time out, first. Does that sound right?

The procedure is to stop play, then give option to coach to replace in 30 seconds or to buy some time.
mick

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by mick

Mark T.,
I agree with your philosophy regarding the blood rule, but when we throw into the mix that the *star player* was not bleeding, and only had incidental blood from another player (accidentally or intentionally), I think the approved procedure of buying a player back into the game may be justified.
mick

Mick:

I understand your argument, but just how often does that situation occur. But just how many times do these situation occur. I am not saying that the situation has not occured in the past or will occur in the future. But I would bet dollars to donuts that the incidence rate does not justify the buy-in rule. Just remove the player(s) involved and let them return at the next substitution opportunity. It takes away the gamemanship that some coaches might want to try and makes application of the rule by officials much easier and straightforward.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by altus
We were told at our State Meeting last night, that if the official sees the blood and stops the game, a time out will not buy their way back into the game. The only way a time out will work is when the player notices the blood and asked for the time out, first. Does that sound right?

Absolutely NOT!! That is not how the rule is to be applied.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
You are correct that the rule also applies to injuries, I should have noted that fact. But lets look at the big picture. Even factoring in the entire scoop of the rule, how many times does an injured player or blood rule situation happen during the course of the season. It just does not happen enough times to justify a complicated timeout rule.

Hey, Mark, I'm on your side! I agree with you 100%. At least I think so. I don't have a problem with a single player having to buy his way back in with a time-out. But it seems unnecassarily complicated to add a lot of extra intricacies if there are two injured players, one from each team. Like you say, how often does it happen?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
But just how many times do these situation occur. I am not saying that the situation has not occured in the past or will occur in the future.

Mark T.,
Well, I started playing in 1960, saw my kids play in the 1980s and 1990s, have been reffin for a while, ... and I remember it happening once.
mick

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by mick

Mark T.,
Well, I started playing in 1960, saw my kids play in the 1980s and 1990s, have been reffin for a while, ... and I remember it happening once.
mick

Mick:

Then you understand what I am saying. There is no real need for such a rule that can have such complicated applications.

MTD, Sr.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Then you understand what I am saying. There is no real need for such a rule that can have such complicated applications.

MTD, Sr.

OK, then let's get rid of the correctable error rule too because (using your logic) I've never had one of those.

Z

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by zebraman

OK, then let's get rid of the correctable error rule too because (using your logic) I've never had one of those.

Z

I am not advocating any such thing. The application of the correctable error rule is far simpler than the application of this rule because the opporturnity of abuse by coaches and the rarity of its needfulness (I hope that is a real word.)

MTD, Sr.

[mick]

Originally posted by zebraman

OK, then let's get rid of the correctable error rule too because (using your logic) I've never had one of those.

Z,
The correctable error rule is mainly for those that don't take care of bidness.
No wonder you haven't used it.
mick