Blood on player

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We're supposed to kill it during the try, but I prefer to wait for the ball to go in, or for a defensive rebound, before kill the play.

Billy is correct about stopping play once the ball is released. There is no TC once the ball is released and if A1's FGA is successful then Team B will get the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the endline in its backcourt. BUT, A1's FGA is NOT successful we have a Jump Ball situation and the ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow.

Billy's waiting to see who gets the rebound is common because we no longer use the more equitable Jump Ball to put the ball back into play, we instead use the Alternating Possession Arrow (which I call an abomination upon the game, to which Billy responds: "Oh just shut up!" Beat you to it, my Christmas present to you Billy, . The wrist and elbow are sore though and wish I could be officiating with Mark, Jr., tonight, like I was supposed to be doing, instead of watching him officiating while recovering from this minor surgery.)

MTD, Sr.

[tjones1]

This is something that has always bothered me and I'm probably going to submit a proposal to have it changed since in my opinion Team A clearly gains an advantage.

3.3.7 Situation B: A1 discovers she is bleeding and intentionally wipes blood on the arm of the both B4 and B5. In (a) neither the referee or umpire observes the bleeding or the action of A1; (b) U1 observes that A1 is bleeding from a cut on her arm; (c) U1 observes B4 and B5 with blood on their arm; or (d) U1 observes A1 bleeding, and observes A1’s action of wiping blood on the arm of B4 and B5. RULING: In (a), A1 must leave the game when the bleed is discovered; (b) A1 must least the game when bleeding is observed; (c) B4 and B5 must leave the game when blood is observed on their person; (d) A1, B4, B5 must leave the game and, A1 is changed with a technical foul for an unsporting act. If in the judgment of U1 the actions of A1 were flagrant, A1 would be disqualified from further competition. Any player or legally entering substitute may attempt the two free throws, after which B will have the ball for a division line throw-in. In all situations, a team may call time-out to keep a player in the game.

I think B4 and B5 should be allowed to stay in the game without a time-out because of A1's unsporting action.

Also, I don't think there's any judgment about it. If I observe a player intentionally wiping blood on another player they will be ejected.

[Camron Rust]

I agree with you in principle but it is such an unlikely event that there are probably bigger fish to fry.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with you in principle but it is such an unlikely event that there are probably bigger fish to fry.

Agree it's very unlikely to happen and there are bigger fish to fry.

But our hands are tied on this one unless it's changed.

I guess I'd like to hear their rationale as to why they require B to take a time-out considering A committed an unsporting act.

[Loudwhistle2]

Originally Posted by tjones1

This is something that has always bothered me and I'm probably going to submit a proposal to have it changed since in my opinion Team A clearly gains an advantage.

3.3.7 Situation B: A1 discovers she is bleeding and intentionally wipes blood on the arm of the both B4 and B5. In (a) neither the referee or umpire observes the bleeding or the action of A1; (b) U1 observes that A1 is bleeding from a cut on her arm; (c) U1 observes B4 and B5 with blood on their arm; or (d) U1 observes A1 bleeding, and observes A1’s action of wiping blood on the arm of B4 and B5. RULING: In (a), A1 must leave the game when the bleed is discovered; (b) A1 must least the game when bleeding is observed; (c) B4 and B5 must leave the game when blood is observed on their person; (d) A1, B4, B5 must leave the game and, A1 is changed with a technical foul for an unsporting act. If in the judgment of U1 the actions of A1 were flagrant, A1 would be disqualified from further competition. Any player or legally entering substitute may attempt the two free throws, after which B will have the ball for a division line throw-in. In all situations, a team may call time-out to keep a player in the game.

I think B4 and B5 should be allowed to stay in the game without a time-out because of A1's unsporting action.

Also, I don't think there's any judgment about it. If I observe a player intentionally wiping blood on another player they will be ejected.

So if A1 and B1 are observed during a live ball with blood on them and the official observes it, play is stopped and each coach must request a timeout to "buy" the player back into the game assuming the blood disappears from their person and the timeouts are served concurrently? I thought each coach must request a timeout to get their player back in. And the timeouts are served concurrently. I'm looking for clarification on this.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle2

So if A1 and B1 are observed during a live ball with blood on them and the official observes it, play is stopped and each coach must request a timeout to "buy" the player back into the game assuming the blood disappears from their person and the timeouts are served concurrently? I thought each coach must request a timeout to get their player back in. And the timeouts are served concurrently. I'm looking for clarification on this.

Yes, each coach must request a time-out to keep their player in. (3-7 Notes).

If both coaches elect to use a time-out, they will run together.

If one coach isn't going to use a time-out that player must be replaced before the time-out is granted to the other team. (3.3.7 Situation C)