In my opinion, we are making this way more difficult than needed. As the rule quoted above states, the player must be removed "Unless a time out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play". Seems very clear. A1 and B1 both have blood on their person and/or uniform, BOTH coaches must request a time out to correct the situation or remove the player from the game (thus consecutive time outs).

At our rules clinic last Saturday (Ft Worth), they made it very clear that was the way it needed to be handled. I understood the discussion to be very cut and dried. You want to keep the player in the game, request a TO. In the situation where one teams has used their TOs, I guess they could request an excessive TO and take the T (although that scenario was not mentioned). However, they emphasised that a player could not stay in the game if the blood situation was corrected during a TO taken by the other team...HIS/HER team had to request the TO.

The only situation I can see that would see unfair is after the end of regulation with a tie score (time has expired), the officials notice A1 and B3 both have blood on their uniform. The first team to call a TO can keep that player in the game, the other team would have to remove their player as consecutive TOs are not allowed in that situation (I think, don't have my books at work).

The Old Blood Rule
 

I say we simplify things and go back to the old blood rule that we used to use playing hoops in our barn:

<b>No blood, no foul!</b>

Now that makes things easier!!!

After more thought and checking with our commissioner, I agree. A1 can only stay in with a timeout by A. If A and B both have blood, each must call a timeout.


At first, I thougt this case might be a loophole...A1 and B1 with blood. A requests a timeout first then B requests timeout. Since there can only be 1 timeout at a time, you grant A's and tell B you will get theirs after A's is over. A1 and B1 are being worked on during this timeout. A1 is not ready at the end of A's timeout and B is now requesting the timeout. Do you require a replacement for A1 before granting B's timeout? If so, B now gets another 60 seconds to get B1 ready. It seems that whoever requests the timeout first only gets 60 seconds to remedy the blood while the other team gets 120 seconds. It would come to a stall where both coaches are waiting for the other to call timeout first. It could get silly.

However, I reread the rule and it says that the player must be ready, not by the end of the timeout, but by the resumption of play. So, A1 can take all of both timeouts to be ready...and even an intermission if needed.

Now, given that both teams can take advantage of both timeouts.... At the end of A's timeout, what if B sees that A1 is not ready. A1 is really a star and the only one that can defend B2 (both 7 footers). B1 is B's best shooter but B has a adequate sub. If A1 is more important to A than B1 is to B, B can choose to not request the timeout in order to keep A1 out while they get the benefit of two timeouts if they so choose.

That does seem to be the case. However, if time has expired and there are no FTs to be shot it is a tie game. A1 and B3 need not be required to leave the game. The intermission that preceeds OT has begun at the point that time expired and both may clean up normally in the intermission.

It there is a potential OT (there are FTs to be shot), then I belive you have a valid point. Technically, the players must be replaced before the FTs can be taken and only one team can call timeout. So, the other team's player will not be starting the possible OT since no time will run off the clock. Also, if that player is A's best player and FT shooter, it may be used by B to influence whether there is OT or not. B can call the timeout, forcing A1 to be replaced with what could be A's 6th best FT shooter.

Forthermore, if A1 were to shoot FTs, A now has the choice to replace A1 with the best FT shooter by not calling a timeout or by letting A1 shoot (if they are the best) by calling the timeout.

Seems like the rule will need to change to allow sucessive timeouts when it involves blood or that the shooter's team have first choice at a timeout after time has expired and the other player is grandfathered in through the intermission.