Blood on player situation

[Kelvin green]

The story seems wierd but...
ART. 7 . . . A player who is bleeding, has an open wound, has any amount of
blood on his/her uniform, or has blood on his/her person, shall be directed to
leave the game until the bleeding is stopped, the wound is covered, the uniform
and/or body is appropriately cleaned, and/or the uniform is changed before
returning to competition, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to,
his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

the player is replaced or they take a time out and get it fixed.... there is no putting the ball in play with 4, there is no having the coach delay...

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

The story seems wierd but...
ART. 7 . . . A player who is bleeding, has an open wound, has any amount of
blood on his/her uniform, or has blood on his/her person, shall be directed to
leave the game until the bleeding is stopped, the wound is covered, the uniform
and/or body is appropriately cleaned, and/or the uniform is changed before
returning to competition, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to,
his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

the player is replaced or they take a time out and get it fixed.... there is no putting the ball in play with 4, there is no having the coach delay...

So if he won't replace the player do you charge that team with a timeout first or do you have the timer start the 20-second replacement interval and make them sub at the risk of a T?

I agree that the story is weird and the 4 on 5 never should have happened in the first place. There could be more to the story, but I've
heard several accounts of it and they're all pretty consistent with what I posted in the OP.

Anyone else have anything??

[APG]

Originally Posted by zm1283

So if he won't replace the player do you charge that team with a timeout first or do you have the timer start the 20-second replacement interval and make them sub at the risk of a T?

I agree that the story is weird and the 4 on 5 never should have happened in the first place. There could be more to the story, but I've
heard several accounts of it and they're all pretty consistent with what I posted in the OP.

Anyone else have anything??

2-12 Timer's Duties

Art 5...Sound a warning signal 15 seconds before the expiration of the 20 seconds (maximum) permitted for replacing a disqualified or injured player, or for a player directed to leave the game.

1. Using that I'd give them 20 seconds to replace the player, then issue a technical foul if the coach doesn't in 20 seconds. This is assuming he doesn't take a timeout to "buy" his player back into the game.

2. Correct. We aren't playing 4 v 5 if there's an eligible substitute available.

3. Correct in that is isn't a technical foul to play with four players. This is only true under NBA rules.

[Judtech]

Why can't the coach play 4 v 5? Obviously we as officials can't make him play 4 v 5 but what if that is his/her choice and then sub the player back in at the first dead ball?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Why can't the coach play 4 v 5? Obviously we as officials can't make him play 4 v 5 but what if that is his/her choice and then sub the player back in at the first dead ball?

Because the rules don't allow it (assuming an eligible sub is available).

[Judtech]

3.1.1 Note: but if it has no substitutes to replace a disqualified or injured player, it must continue with fewer than 5....

So, who determines if a player on the bench is a substitute? The rule can even read that the team needs to substitute to replace a disqualified or injured PLAYER. It can be argued, albeit a stretch, that a coach may determine that the 5'2" PLAYER really isn't a replacement for his 7' PLAYER. I don't see where we are the ones to determine which player is a substitute. Sure the players on the bench are our leading candidates, but how do we know that some players aren't being disciplined, or injured, or carrying a deadly contagion? To me, that is the coaches responsibility. If they want to play with four, let them play with four.
This rule, as it is currently written, is more a guidance to what happens when there are fewer then 5 players. 3.1.1 says that a team CONSISTS of 5 players one of whom is the captain. This is interpreted basically as a team has to START with 5, but can finish with 2 (or 1 if the referee believes the team still has a chance to win)
Let the beatings begin!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

3.1.1 Note: but if it has no substitutes to replace a disqualified or injured player, it must continue with fewer than 5....

So, who determines if a player on the bench is a substitute? The rule can even read that the team needs to substitute to replace a disqualified or injured PLAYER. It can be argued, albeit a stretch, that a coach may determine that the 5'2" PLAYER really isn't a replacement for his 7' PLAYER. I don't see where we are the ones to determine which player is a substitute. Sure the players on the bench are our leading candidates, but how do we know that some players aren't being disciplined, or injured, or carrying a deadly contagion? To me, that is the coaches responsibility. If they want to play with four, let them play with four.
This rule, as it is currently written, is more a guidance to what happens when there are fewer then 5 players. 3.1.1 says that a team CONSISTS of 5 players one of whom is the captain. This is interpreted basically as a team has to START with 5, but can finish with 2 (or 1 if the referee believes the team still has a chance to win)
Let the beatings begin!

That case play states "Team B must have five players participating as long as they have that number available." That's a very plain and definitive directive by the rulesmakers. It's sureashell NOT a guidance; it's an absolute.

It's just not worth getting into beatings or arguments with you simply because you don't understand plainly written rules. WOBW.