20-Second I.O.T. for Blood?
 

When a player is injured, an official should direct the timekeeper to start the 20-second clock for the interval of time needed for a substitution.

Does an official do the same if a player is bleeding (but not injured)?

see rule 3-3-7

Is bleeding not an injury?

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

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?

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.

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

Agree

+1

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! :D

rhetorical question
 

So this would also apply to concussions? :D

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.

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.....:rolleyes:

You amuse me, JR.

Actually, 2-12-5 answers the aforementioned question as it is. While there certainly is an exception in 3-3-6, I don't see it as applicable to this particular question, as nowhere did it state that a coach requested a time out. The question merely asked whether you would use a 20-second I.O.T. for blood, and "a player directed to leave the game" sums it up.

Scrapper and Ed, I'm having difficulty finding the citation that we must wait for a coach to request a time out before calling for the I.O.T. If anyone has such a citation, please chime in.

It seems to me that in order to get to the false answer, one must engage in "reading too much into the question."

You make me laugh too, Bainsey. For a relatively new official(5 years or so, right?) who hasn't really broken into high school varsity ball yet, you sureashell try to come across as all-knowing when you get into discussions like this. Some very sharp guys, including one who is a D1 official and an IAABO rules interpreter, have tried to give you the right direction in this thread, but as usual you blithely motor on insisting that your personal flights of fancy HAVE to be correct.

Good luck to you and your "high ranking interpreter that assists with RefSchool" buddy. You both need it.

Now carry on doing what you do so well. :)

You amuse me too, Snaqwells. But in a good way. :D

Interesting perspective. I don't believe it to be my flights, though.

I asked a question here, to gather thoughts on something that didn't seem right to me. Later, I found the answer, a citation, and a source. And in the end, my RefSchool contact said the answer in the software was indeed erroneous. Problem solved.

Snaq, I think you're right about "reading too much into it." It's one simple question, folks, and on a test, a rookie gets the same amount of points as a veteran.

The rookie never gets the same number of points as the rookie. Just sayin ;)

????
Yogi?

Doesn't matter, 'cause he's just sayin. :p

You cut me so deep.

I know, right?

Need a hug?

Actually, it appears I need a really long nap.

But if a hug is the best you can do... :D

Not really. 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. Not one person here has agreed with you. We all thought the correct answer should be "no" as per the reasoning and cites already given to you.

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. There is NO replacement interval in that situation. The cite is NFHS rules 3-3-7 and 3-3-7NOTES: (ARTS: 6, 7) 2.

But if you feel that the problem is solved, I'm personally quite happy to go along with that. It's a waste of time trying to explain anything to you anyway imo.

Geeze guys, get a room.

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

Both options, of course. :D

Shut up.

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. :)

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

Bloody Mess ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

IAABO Board 666 (Northwest Romania) ...
 

Not everyone. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., from IAABO (Lake Erie District) Board #55 is a notable exception. If you need any interpretations from the 19th century, he's your man. There are a few other notable "non-hiders" as well.

I, on the other hand, for reasons outlined below, prefer to hide behind my screen persona: BillyMac, an environmental chemical analyst, from a little corner of Connecticut. Seems innocent enough. However, most veteran Forum members know that, in reality, I'm just a sweet transvestite from Transexual, Transylvania.

Reasons for posting anonymously? Here's one example. On November 6, 2006 Chuck Elias, IAABO Board #31 (Hampden County, Massachusetts) rules interpreter, and a highly respected Official Forum member, left the Official Forum. Here's a copy of his post that day:

"After talking about this with some friends from the board and some other officials, I've decided to stop contributing to the forum. As Mick alluded to in the baseball thread, I was hired by a couple of D1 conferences, although I didn't receive any assignments from one of them. Although it's not very likely, I don't want any of my comments to be misconstrued and then passed on to an assignor. Fear not, I will be back to start the annual baseball thread. And I'll keep reading. But I won't be posting very much anymore. If for some unknown reason somebody wants my input on something, you could still email me through the forum. It's been great, guys and gals. Everybody have a great season".

It appears that ChuckElias was a man far ahead of his time. According to one of our local IAABO board officers, who attended last year's IAABO fall meeting, there was a discussion at that meeting regarding legal issues in which it was strongly suggested that officials not participate in "chat rooms". Shortly after ChuckElias went incognito, one of my mentors suggested that I do the same, which I did. According to the legal issues covered at the IAABO fall meeting, I guess it really is a good idea to post incognito.

This is what's known as hyperbole. It may be difficult to tell veteran officials from rules interpreters. It may be difficult to tell veteran high school officials from mid-level college officials. It may be difficult to tell long-time JV officials from mid-level varsity officials.

It may be all of those things, but it's certainly not "difficult to tell the rookies from the highly learned."

Well, bainsey, at NO time in this thread that I can see did I ever ask you to disclose your source. Nor did I disclose the true identity of the IAABO board interpreter that has already posted in this thread that you and your "high ranked interpreter that assists with RefSchool" are both full of sh!t, to put it bluntly but truthfully. My words, not his...before he e-mails me screaming. :D What I did ask you was if you asked your board interpreter the identical question that you posted here, along with the answers and reasons for those answers that you were given here. You know, the question that you say is "yes" but everyone else says is "no". Your failure to respond directly to that certainly speaks volumes to me.

And believe me, I can tell YOU very easily from the highly learned. No matter whether you might happen to have 5 years in, you're still a rookie in knowledge and experience.

+1 on that!