Blood on player situation
 

This happened locally in a girl's sectional game last night.

Play is stopped and B10 has blood on her uniform. Official informs the coach that he can use a timeout or sub for her. From what I've gathered from reading firsthand accounts and the newspaper report, he tried to stall while the blood was cleaned off of her uniform. (She went to the bench, so Team B only had four players on the court) After this little delay, the official walks across the court and administers the throw in with B having four players on the court. (I heard that he did this because he was upset that A's star player was allowed to tie/fix her shoe earlier in the game and A wasn't instructed to sub for her or use a timeout)

After a few seconds, B's coach sends a sub directly on to the court. Just as this happens, A hits a three pointer and a T is called for the player entering the court. B's coach justified it in the paper by saying that he would have gotten a T for playing only four players when he had enough eligible players to play with five.

A few questions:

1. Shouldn't the official have used the 20-second replacement interval when they determined that they coach was not going to call a timeout for the player with blood on the uniform? Give him the 20 seconds and then the T if he doesn't replace her, right?

2. I assume that you should never put the ball back in play if one team only has four players on the court and has eligible players on the bench.

3. It isn't a T to play with only four players, right? The coach is simply instructed to put a fifth player on the court, correct?

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??

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.

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).

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.

Who determines if a player is available or not? What if team B has five players eligible but not available? What if the coach is discipling some players and sitting them for a half, quarter or rest of the game? They are eligible to play but are they available.
It is not a definitive or plain directive from the rules makers. If the powers that be clarified who determines who is available (like in the concussion ruling) THEN it would be plain and definitive. As it stands now, that issue is unresolved.
(And here we were agreeing on things!!)