20-Second I.O.T. for Blood?

[M&M Guy]

Geeze guys, get a room.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Geeze guys, get a room.

Who, Me and that really Snaq-y guy? Or JR and Bainsey?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Who, Me and that really Snaq-y guy? Or JR and Bainsey?

Both options, of course.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Both options, of course.

Shut up.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Quite simply, we do NOT direct the timer to start the replacement interval IF a TO request is granted to keep the player with blood on their uni in the game.

Again, the question never once mentioned a time out, period.

The consensus on this forum is that you, RefSchool and your "high ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool" buddy are all full of sh!t.

Wow, first name-calling, then cursing out? And you desire respect?

Why do I have Sara Bareilles in my head right now?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Again, the question never once mentioned a time out, period.


Wow, first name-calling, then cursing out? And you desire respect?

Why do I have Sara Bareilles in my head right now?

No, the question didn't mention a TO. But the fact that the coach has the legal right by rule to call a TO first to keep his player in the game has to be factored into the correct answer to the question. If he does that, there is NO replacement interval. And that possible scenario makes the correct answer 'NO". It's "NO" because "YES" doesn't cover ALL of the possible situations that might be encountered. It is NOT 100% certain that the official will instruct the timer to start the 20-second clock for a replacement under ALL of the possible circumstances. And that's what you can't get through your thick, smug little skull. And I could care less about getting respect from a wise-azz no-nothing semi-rookie like you. Get some spit built up in your whistle and then maybe I'll take you seriously. It's sureashell awfully hard to do that now considering some of the stoopid arguments you're known for bringing up on different forums.

Feel free to dismiss all of the above also. It's expected.

And btw, Sara Bareilles is just about all that you have in your head.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is bleeding not an injury?

Some would say No, but is sign of a foul!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is bleeding not an injury?

Bleeding may be an injury, but blood on a uniform, especially blood from another player, certainly is not, but it's still treated like an injury, the player is directed to leave the game.

[bainsey]

One of the things I asked my board's interpreter is whether we should or shouldn't ask the coach if he wants a time out, when presented with a bleeding player. According to him, it's neither forbidden nor mandatory.

Still, it sounds like a pretty good idea to me, depending on the knowledge of the coach.

[Joel Poli]

The original question had blood on the uniform, it has nothing to do w/ an injury. how do we know that the blood came from the player in question? no TO needed, No 20 sec. IOT needed, just need to change the shirt, make # correction in the scorebook if needed and get the player back in the game (NFHS casebook play 3.3.7 sit A). answer is no.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

One of the things I asked my board's interpreter is whether we should or shouldn't ask the coach if he wants a time out, when presented with a bleeding player. According to him, it's neither forbidden nor mandatory.

What did your board interpreter tell you to do with a player with blood on his uni? Did your board interpreter tell you that you MUST direct the timer to start the 20-second clock for replacing the player even if you do grant a TO request to keep that player in the game?

Or do you only ask certain questions of your board interpreter?

Just wondering, bainsey.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Joel Poli

The original question had blood on the uniform, it has nothing to do w/ an injury. how do we know that the blood came from the player in question? no TO needed, No 20 sec. IOT needed, just need to change the shirt, make # correction in the scorebook if needed and get the player back in the game (NFHS casebook play 3.3.7 sit A). answer is no.

Joel, that case play doesn't definitively mention whether a TO must be granted to keep the player in the game. Case book play 3.3.7SitC discusses blood on a player, and in that case a TO request must be made to keep the player in the game. Note that rule 3-3-7 says that a player with blood on their uni is directed to leave the game, and can only stay in if a TO is granted and the player is ready to go at the end of that TO. Also, the NOTES: (Arts. 6,7) in the rule book also covers a player with blood on their uni, as per rule 3-3-7. And the NOTES also say that a TO must be granted to keep the player in the game if they are directed to leave for injury/blood as outlined in 3-3-6 & 3-3-7.

Iow a granted TO is needed to keep the player with blood on their uni in the game, but NO 20-second IOT is needed if that TO is granted.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What did your board interpreter tell you to do with a player with blood on his uni? Did your board interpreter tell you that you MUST direct the timer to start the 20-second clock for replacing the player even if you do grant a TO request to keep that player in the game?.

Since you asked nicely, JR...

The conversation was more about mechanics and procedure than rules. Specifically, I asked if it's required or forbidden to ask a coach if he wants a time out to keep a removed player in the game. I was told it's optional.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Since you asked nicely, JR...

The conversation was more about mechanics and procedure than rules. Specifically, I asked if it's required or forbidden to ask a coach if he wants a time out to keep a removed player in the game. I was told it's optional.

And here's my nice response, bainsey...

Methinks you didn't really want to ask him that particular question.

Btw and fwiw, as I said before you already had the answer from another IAABO board interpreter earlier in this thread. He said the correct answer was "no". And again fwiw, this particular nameless board interpreter is noted for his rules acumen. Very, very seldom is he wrong. You can usually take what he says straight to the bank. To me, he's a heckuva more reliable source than your nameless "high-ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool". But hey, that's just me.

And now the kinder, gentler JR will retreat back into the murk and miasma from whence he came.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw and fwiw, as I said before you already had the answer from another IAABO board interpreter earlier in this thread. He said the correct answer was "no". And again fwiw, this particular nameless board interpreter is noted for his rules acumen. Very, very seldom is he wrong.

That may be so, JR, but I honestly don't know the credentials of anyone here, as everyone here hides behind anonymous screen names, just as it is at most online forums. It's rather difficult to tell the rookies from the highly learned.

In fairness, you don't know my source, either, but trust me, he is well respected and acknowledged within IAABO. I simply don't feel comfortable publishing his name in a forum where I really know one or two people.

That said, I don't see anyone else bothered by my questioning other than you, sir. You come across as one who equates questioning with disrespect. Please don't forget that one cannot learn effectively without questioning, and I believe I have done so civilly. However, you have approached this with name-calling and cursing out, and I equate both of those with disrespect.

If your source is as well respected as you say, then I doubt he would resort to such measures.

Back to my conference...