Blood and Timeout

[sseltser]

In the Duke/UConn Game, Scheyer got elbowed and was bleeding. Before play was stopped, a UConn player fell on a looseball and requested timeout, which was granted. Following the timeout, Scheyer was ready to play, which seems like proper enforcement in NCAA (I believe a rule change 2 or 3 yrs ago).

For NFHS, would Duke have been required to take a timeout to keep Scheyer in the game? How does this work: Does the calling official wait to report the TO until the coach decides what to do with the bleeding player (i.e. timeout or replacement)? If the coach wants to keep the player in, are the timeouts successive or simultaneous?

[tjones1]

Interesting question...

Since the TO was granted and the play wasn't killed for blood and the player wasn't directed to leave I would say that under NFHS if the player was ready at the end of the TO then he could stay in without them having to use a timeout.

[Back In The Saddle]

Interesting question indeed.

The blood rule is not a playing rule -- a violation or foul that should be called -- it's a safety rule. And if the unsafe situation ceases to exist before you can address it...why would you pursue it?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Interesting question indeed.

The blood rule is not a playing rule -- a violation or foul that should be called -- it's a safety rule. And if the unsafe situation ceases to exist before you can address it...why would you pursue it?

That was my thinking.

The blood rule requires us to stop play to address the situation. But here play is already stopped.

The time-out requirement is designed to speed up the game: in general since we have stopped play for safety reasons, we're either going to have the team use a time-out or resume play immediately. But here we didn't stop play for safety reasons, and play will resume no faster if we assess a time-out.

The time-out provision of the rule is not intended as a punishment, and it doesn't seem reasonable or fair to impose a punishment by assessing a time-out.

[BktBallRef]

Was the player directed to leave the game? No.

A player who is not directed to leave the game is still in the game.

Therefore, we don't care what happens during the timeout.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Was the player directed to leave the game? No.

A player who is not directed to leave the game is still in the game.

Therefore, we don't care what happens during the timeout.

Correct.

[sseltser]

Thanks, all. This ruling makes the most sense, but I know that just because something makes sense or seems right, doesn't mean it is. Glad that we don't need to overthink this situation.