New Blood Rule

[RecRef]

Attended our state refresher yesterday. A question came-up about the new blood rule that got me thinking along the lines of the ref that brought it up.

Situation: A1 is bleeding and some of the blood gets on the jersey of B1. Coach A decides to take A1 out of the game and does not call a timeout. Coach B wants to keep B1 in the game, as he is the teams’ best player and time is running out... Team B is now penalized by having to use one of its timeouts to keep him in. Or worse yet, team B may be out of timeouts and the only way to keep B1 is to request a TO and receive a T for doing so.

I hope that this is revisited next year.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by RecRef
Attended our state refresher yesterday. A question came-up about the new blood rule that got me thinking along the lines of the ref that brought it up.

Situation: A1 is bleeding and some of the blood gets on the jersey of B1. Coach A decides to take A1 out of the game and does not call a timeout. Coach B wants to keep B1 in the game, as he is the teams’ best player and time is running out... Team B is now penalized by having to use one of its timeouts to keep him in. Or worse yet, team B may be out of timeouts and the only way to keep B1 is to request a TO and receive a T for doing so.

I hope that this is revisited next year.

Why can't you just let B1 change his jersey in this case?

[RecRef]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Why can't you just let B1 change his jersey in this case? [/B][/QUOTE]

The discussion was one of those what if types. It was left in the locker room/car type of thing.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by RecRef

Why can't you just let B1 change his jersey in this case? [/B][/QUOTE]

The discussion was one of those what if types. It was left in the locker room/car type of thing. [/B][/QUOTE]

B1 can use B10's jersey, he aint getting in the game now anyway.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by RecRef
Attended our state refresher yesterday. A question came-up about the new blood rule that got me thinking along the lines of the ref that brought it up.

Situation: A1 is bleeding and some of the blood gets on the jersey of B1. Coach A decides to take A1 out of the game and does not call a timeout. Coach B wants to keep B1 in the game, as he is the teams’ best player and time is running out... Team B is now penalized by having to use one of its timeouts to keep him in. Or worse yet, team B may be out of timeouts and the only way to keep B1 is to request a TO and receive a T for doing so.

I hope that this is revisited next year.

Even if Coach A decides to keep A1 in the game (by calling a TO), B still has to call a TO to keep B in the game.

The rule change is only intended to give teams an option they didn't have last year (last year B1 would have to come out of the game).

You might ahve a point that we should only penalize the "bleeder" and not those who are affected by the blood. But, that's a change to the old (and still existing) rule, not a problem caused by the new rule.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Even if Coach A decides to keep A1 in the game (by calling a TO), B still has to call a TO to keep B in the game.

The rule change is only intended to give teams an option they didn't have last year (last year B1 would have to come out of the game).

You might ahve a point that we should only penalize the "bleeder" and not those who are affected by the blood. But, that's a change to the old (and still existing) rule, not a problem caused by the new rule.

Bob...this is similar to the sitch we were discussing in a previous post.
I stated that if Team A calls a time-out and the official notices blood on B1 as he exits the floor...if Coach B wants to keep B1 in the game he would have to be charged a time-out. Therefore both teams would be charged a time-out.
You stated last year you would have just let B1 get "cleaned" up during A's time-out and let him return after the time-out.
You may have a point there...but, with the new rule concerning blood it requires a time-out, by his own team, before he can return.

RD

[Nevadaref]

3-3-6 A player who is bleeding, has an open wound, has an EXCESSIVE amount of blood on his/her uniform, or has blood on his/her person, shall be directed to leave the game. Unless a time-out is requested by his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the resumption of play.

I will start this post with my perpetual gripe that the wording of this rule is very poor. For that matter so is the grammar.

Notice that the time-out only has to be requested--not granted, the blood on the uniform must be "excessive", but apparently any amount of blood on the person no matter how small is unacceptable, and it makes no difference if the player is cut on his face or arm or the inside of his cheek. Also, it is too vague. We need answers to all of these cases that are being brought up in meetings and on the discussion board and were not given any specifics. Thanks rules committee for doing a sloppy job.

Now that said, regarding the player who has blood on his uniform: first determine if it is excessive. What is excessive? I guess that is the official's judgment, but it is certainly not a few drops or the amount you get from wiping a scratch on your shirt. If there is not an excessive amount, by rule, the official is not required to direct the player to leave the game. This could be used in your example to let the non-bleeding player stay in the game with or without jersey change. Simply say that the amount of blood is not excessive in your opinion.

Second, the rule says "shall be directed to leave the game." This means must. If the player meets any of the four requirements stated in the rule, the official may not allow him to continue to play.

Third, the wording of the rule indicates that the time-out should be requested BEFORE the player is directed to leave the game, not after. Hence, the UNLESS a time-out is requested phrase. Here in Nevada we have not set a strict procedure for how we are going to administer this rule during the season, but I have recommended to our board that we handle the situation in the following manner:
Official notices B1 is bleeding, official should inform the coach of team B, "Coach your player B1 is bleeding. Do you want a time-out?" If the coach says yes, grant it and see if the problem can be fixed in the allotted time. If the coach says no, then direct B1 to leave the game and give the coach of team B 30 seconds to substitute. That makes things clear and smooth.

We have a preseason coaches meeting with the commisioner and at that meeting all coaches should be informed about the new rule and how the officials will handle the situation. They will thus know what is going to happen when we inform them of an injury or bleeding player and ask them if they want time-out.

Lastly, someone asked why we don't penalize only the bleeder. May I ask why should one be penalized for bleeding? Who knows why he is bleeding. Maybe he hit the floor or the scorer's table. Maybe he was fouled hard. If the foul caused the player to bleed, shouldn't we only penalize the fouler?
Remember, the blood rule is in place to protect the safety of all involved with the game. Players, officials, spectators, trainers, etc. No one wants to contract a disease from a sports contest. Keep that in mind when making a ruling.

[Edited by nevadaref on Nov 9th, 2002 at 04:40 AM]

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by RookieDude

You stated last year you would have just let B1 get "cleaned" up during A's time-out and let him return after the time-out.
You may have a point there...but, with the new rule concerning blood it requires a time-out, by his own team, before he can return.

RD

I'm not so sure that the "last year" part is right. If a player was injured or had blood on their uniform, they would have to be ordered to leave the game - i.e., get a sub. Once a sub has been put in, B1 can't go back in to the game until time has properly run off the clock. Therefore, B1 should (how we call it is different) not have been allowed to come back in.