Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Because Rule 3-3-6 requires the bloodied player's team to request a time-out in order for him/her to be allowed to return to the game.
RD
|
But that's only when a player is directed to leave the game.
That didn't happen when the blood was discovered during the TO.
If this happened last year, we wouldn't require a sub, right? So, we don't require either a sub or a TO this year.
|
In my sitch I used the example that A1 was discovered to have blood on his uniform after Team B had requested a time-out. This question arose at our State, WA state, rules meeting. The rules clinician stated that if both Teams had bloodied players, both teams would have to use a time-out to get their bloodied players back in the game.
A question was asked to the clinician about a Team calling time-out and then the other Team's player seen by an official leaving the floor to have blood on his uniform. The clinician stated that if the Team that had a bloodied player wanted him back in...then they would have to use a time-out, even though the other Team had already been charged with a time-out.
bob jenkins has a point though...we probably could have let the player in if he got the situation "fixed" during the other Team's time-out...
What's different this year?
RD