Just a quick question regarding the new blood rule. If lets say A1 is injured and there is blood on his/her person and their uniform. The coach calls a time-out takes care of the blood on his player and due to the blood on his/her jersey has the player change to a different numbered uniform to wear. Can he/she play? With or without penalty? How would you handle this situation???

Jamie

Yes they should play.
 

You should do everything in your power to allow the player to play. So if using another number for the player to play with blood on it, let them do that. The casebook has a play that makes this very clear.

<b>3.3.6. SITUATION A</b>

Hope that helps.

Peace

Rut is correct. A player was <b> always </b> able to use a teammate's jersey to continue to play without penalty when blood was present.

The difference now is that a coach is allowed to call a time-out and keep the player in the game.

In the past, the player had to sit out until the next substitution opportunity after the clock had run.

Z

Ours rules clinic this past Saturday spent some time on this subject. One item of note, is that if A1 has blood on the body and uniform and can't be ready by the time we are ready to put the ball in play, Team A can call a time out to allow the player to have time (30 or 60 seconds) to "clean up". However, a time out by B does not cover player A1..... the time out must be by the team affected by the blood.

Scott-
I do not agree with your statement. I do not see where it states 100% that Team A player cannot come back in if Team B calls the time out. If I am wrong please let me know!

AK ref SE

Does that matter?
 

I do not think who calls a timeout matters. Unless you can find a casebook play that deals with this specificially, I would not have a problem with any player playing regardless of who called a timeout.

Peace

Scott,
I think I'll let 'im change on the opponents time out, based on "no rule against it" , and as you said, "...ready by the time we are ready to put the ball in play".
mick

I don't think that B can be granted a timeout until either A1 has been replaced or A1 is ready to play.

While I haven't seen the actual wording yet the summary says:
<quote>3-3-5,3-3-6: Permits a player who is required to leave the game for blood or injury to remain in the game if <b><em>the team</em></b> calls a time-out and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play.</quote> (emphasis mine)

The rule is clear (even if it's poorly edited): "Unless a time out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play

Guys. I was relaying the words from our rules clinic this past Saturday. The interpretation provided by the TASO clinicians was as I said above.

Now, whether this changes or not I can't say, but......

I think Bob's quote above does clearly support this interpretation

Bob -- what if the TO is called by Team B before the blood is discovered? For example, ball goes sailing out of bounds, trail calls "White [Team B] Ball", Coach B requests and is granted a TO, and THEN lead escorts player A1 over to the sideline and points out the blood. If they get it taken care of before B's TO is finished, do they have to call another one? In other words, is this a penalty, or is it just a practical matter?

what about a worse case senario:
A1 is bleeding and has bled on B2's jersey, there is 2 seconds left in the game, B down by 3(B will inbound at the 28ft mark in front court) and B2 is the top 3 point shooter for team B. A has one 30 sec TO left and B has none. according to the interp. from our state, A may call its TO and keep A1 in the game(if bleeding stopped during TO) but B2 must be replaced until the next oppportunity to sub. or if B has a TO each team must use its TO to keep players in the game(how would you administer these TO's concurrent or consecutive?).

I agree with that interp.

There is no such thing as "concurrent" TOs, so they'd be consecutive. Of course, if both teams (NFHS; calling team NCAA) are ready before the end of the second TO, you can resume play.

Juulie -- If B has already called the TO before the blood is discovered, then A can fix it during that TO.

Think of the rule this way: If something happens to your player that delays the game, then you will incur a penalty. The penalty is either remove the player or be charged with a TO.

In your play, there was no delay. Thus, there is no penalty.

It may be that if A calls a timeout in such a case, it may buy B back in as well if B2 is ready at the end of the timeout. Makes A think about whether to actually call the timeout to keep A1 in or not.

I'm sure that there will be some loopholes in this rule for the first couple of years.

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.