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

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is bleeding not an injury?

If not, it is the direct result of an injury.

[bainsey]

I'm questioning a RefSchool ruling.

Rule 3-3-7 says nothing about the 20-second I.O.T. I suppose bleeding is an injury, but getting someone else's blood on your uni isn't, and you're still coming out nonetheless.

This is all about the I.O.T.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I'm questioning a RefSchool ruling.

Rule 3-3-7 says nothing about the 20-second I.O.T. I suppose bleeding is an injury, but getting someone else's blood on your uni isn't, and you're still coming out nonetheless.

This is all about the I.O.T.

Did you read the new case book plays? Or the old ones?

[bainsey]

Couldn't find anything in the case book, JR, but upon further review, 2-12-5 clearly says the timer will sound a warning signal five seconds into the 20-second interval used when "a player [is] directed to leave the game."

The RefSchool question that spawned this thread reads:

"B-1 is directed to the bench because of blood on his/her uniform.
The official directs the timer to start the 20-second clock to replace B-1. Is the official correct?"

I had YES. RefSchool says NO, citing 2-12-5 and 10-5-3, the latter which has nothing to do with the question.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Couldn't find anything in the case book, JR, but upon further review, 2-12-5 clearly says the timer will sound a warning signal five seconds into the 20-second interval used when "a player [is] directed to leave the game."

The RefSchool question that spawned this thread reads:

"B-1 is directed to the bench because of blood on his/her uniform.
The official directs the timer to start the 20-second clock to replace B-1. Is the official correct?"

I had YES. RefSchool says NO, citing 2-12-5 and 10-5-3, the latter which has nothing to do with the question.

In citing 2-12-5, you left out "except as in 3-3-6" which is in the NOTE.

There are 3 new case plays this year under 3.3.6.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In citing 2-12-5, you left out "except as in 3-3-6" which is in the NOTE.

True, sir, but not applicable to the question. Nowhere in the question did it mention the coach requesting a time out, and the case plays in 3.3.6 regard injury, not blood on a uniform.

In any event, I checked with a high-ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool, and according to him, the answer is indeed YES. The software is a fantastic tool, but like us, it has a few glitches.

(I think I set someone up for the overhead smash with "fantastic tool.")

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

True, sir, but not applicable to the question. Nowhere in the question did it mention the coach requesting a time out, and the case plays in 3.3.6 regard injury, not blood on a uniform.

In any event, I checked with a high-ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool, and according to him, the answer is indeed YES. The software is a fantastic tool, but like us, it has a few glitches.

(I think I set someone up for the overhead smash with "fantastic tool.")

I think that you are a fantastic tool also.

And so is your "high-ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool", if that was supposed to impress me.

Read NFHS rule 3-3-7. That tells you that blood on a uniform is treated the exact same way as an open wound or bleeding. It also tells you that a team can request and be granted a timeout to keep the player with blood on their uniform in the game. And tell your "high ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool" when you see him that rules 3-3-6 and 3-3-7 have identical language when it comes to those TO requests and both share the same language in the "NOTES: (ARTS:6,7)" under those rules. Maybe you can find somebody to explain those NOTES, especially Note #2, to both of you. That note applies to blood on a freaking uniform.

Lah me.....

[Scrapper1]

I think the answer is NO because the coach can elect to use a time-out to fix the blood situation.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think the answer is NO because the coach can elect to use a time-out to fix the blood situation.

Agree

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by scrapper1

i think the answer is no because the coach can elect to use a time-out to fix the blood situation.

+1

[Ed Maeder]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think the answer is NO because the coach can elect to use a time-out to fix the blood situation.

The request for the time out must precede the starting of the 20 second interval. If not they must replace the player.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

The request for the time out must precede the starting of the 20 second interval. If not they must replace the player.

Gee, somebody actually took the time to read the new case book plays cited above.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

The request for the time out must precede the starting of the 20 second interval.

Correct. That's why the test answer is no. You don't automatically direct the timer to start the replacement period. You wait until you know whether the coach wants a time-out.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

The request for the time out must precede the starting of the 20 second interval. If not they must replace the player.

+1 on that!