The Official Forum
Page 3 of 7 12 3 45 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Discovered Blood during a TO (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/93470-discovered-blood-during.html)

just another ref Fri Jan 11, 2013 02:52pm
If you see a player take his shirttail out during a
timeout/injury stoppage/other break in the action pause, would you direct him to leave the game?

VaTerp Fri Jan 11, 2013 02:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 871690)
It does say that his partner told the coach...wonder what he told that coach?

And VaTerp, the rules regarding this situation have been stated several times and are clear. You are choosing to handle a situation where you tell the coach the player has blood and must be taken care of in a way which is not supported by the rules.
Im saying the same thing as JAR, that if play is stopped then there is essentially no game for the player to be directed from.

And for the last time, I think my interpretation is a clear common sense application of the rule which is supported.

bob jenkins Fri Jan 11, 2013 02:59pm
You notice that A1 is bleeding and stop the game. The coach indicates the s/he'll use a TO to try to keep A1 in the game.

Just after you report the TO, you notice B1 is also bleeding.

Will you let B1 stay in the game without a TO from Coach B?

just another ref Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 871696)
You notice that A1 is bleeding and stop the game. The coach indicates the s/he'll use a TO to try to keep A1 in the game.

Just after you report the TO, you notice B1 is also bleeding.

Will you let B1 stay in the game without a TO from Coach B?
I would. Two separate incidents.

You call a foul on B1 for holding A1 in the post. Just after the whistle, you realize A2 has been standing in the lane for 11 seconds.

Them's the breaks.

VaTerp Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 871696)
You notice that A1 is bleeding and stop the game. The coach indicates the s/he'll use a TO to try to keep A1 in the game.

Just after you report the TO, you notice B1 is also bleeding.

Will you let B1 stay in the game without a TO from Coach B?
Yes.

Officials stop the game with 30 seconds left in the 4th quarter to tend to a clock issue. As both teams walk to the area in front of their bench you notice A1 has blood on his elbow. While officials are still tending to the clock issue A1's trainer stops bleeding and puts a bandage on the elbow.

Are you going to insist that time has to run off of the clock before A1 is allowed to "re-enter" the game?

BillyMac Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:30pm
Sounds Good ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 871621)
Once a player is directed to leave (and the coach hasn't taken a TO), they can't return until the clock has run.
Sit a tick?

OKREF Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 871696)
You notice that A1 is bleeding and stop the game. The coach indicates the s/he'll use a TO to try to keep A1 in the game.

Just after you report the TO, you notice B1 is also bleeding.

Will you let B1 stay in the game without a TO from Coach B?
No. Timeout only applies to A. If B1 wants to stay B coach must call TO.

VaTerp Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 871692)
That's the whole problem. In the OP, I say the player should not have been directed to leave.
This is the better way to put it.

If play is already stopped for an extended period due to a charged timeout, player injury, or another situation then I'm essentially telling the coach to get the blood situation corrected not directing the player to leave the game.

The intent and purpose of the rule is to address the blood situation with as little disruption of the game as possible. If it can be addressed during the course of stoppage for another reason then what purpose is served by insisting that the player must sit out?

Nobody has answered that question.

OKREF Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 871486)
If it is cleaned up by the time the injured player is off the court and we are ready to play I am probably letting them in, if not then they must take a timeout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 871711)
This is the better way to put it.

If play is already stopped for an extended period due to a charged timeout, player injury, or another situation then I'm essentially telling the coach to get the blood situation corrected not directing the player to leave the game.

The intent and purpose of the rule is to address the blood situation with as little disruption of the game as possible. If it can be addressed during the course of stoppage for another reason then what purpose is served by insisting that the player must sit out?

Nobody has answered that question.
I agree. The play was already stopped for injury. If they get fixed prior to the end of the injury stoppage, I am letting them stay.

rockyroad Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 871711)

Nobody has answered that question.
My point guard get slammed into and has the wind knocked out of him. You beckon me onto the court. He gets up and is ready to go, but you tell me that I have to take a timeout in order for him to stay in the game. I request a timeout.

As you are walking to the table, I point out to you that my opponent's point guard is bleeding from his elbow. You tell me you will take care of it and you tell the other coach about the blood. At the end of the timeout, both point guards are ready to go, but you have only required me to use a timeout to keep my player in the game. The other coach just got a freebie from you because you won't handle it according to rule.

And you don't think that is an advantage for that other coach?

VaTerp Fri Jan 11, 2013 03:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 871717)
My point guard get slammed into and has the wind knocked out of him. You beckon me onto the court. He gets up and is ready to go, but you tell me that I have to take a timeout in order for him to stay in the game. I request a timeout.

As you are walking to the table, I point out to you that my opponent's point guard is bleeding from his elbow. You tell me you will take care of it and you tell the other coach about the blood. At the end of the timeout, both point guards are ready to go, but you have only required me to use a timeout to keep my player in the game. The other coach just got a freebie from you because you won't handle it according to rule.

And you don't think that is an advantage for that other coach?
No, he didnt get a "freebie" from me b/c I didnt handle it according to YOUR interpretation of the rule.

He didnt have to use a TO because as a crew we did not discover the blood on his player until after an awarded TO. But as JAR said those are the breaks.

And if the blood is discovered prior to the TO being awarded then you could consider it a stoppage to address both situations simultaneously, in which case both coaches would be required to take a TO to keep their players in the game.

rockyroad Fri Jan 11, 2013 04:09pm
3-3-7 Notes...you are making stuff up.

VaTerp Fri Jan 11, 2013 04:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 871725)
3-3-7 Notes...you are making stuff up.
I've read 3-3-7 notes more than once today due to this discussion. I'm not making anything up.

In your situation the player the coach pointed out after the timeout has not been directed to leave the game.

Casebook 3.3.7 Situation C refers to blood being discovered SIMULTANEOUSLY. That's not the case in your scenario.

Sharpshooternes Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 871538)
The response would be, "Coach we stopped play when A1 displayed signs of a concussion. The blood situation with B1 was discovered during this stoppage and taken care of before we were ready to resume play." The stoppage in play was because A1 was injured and had nothing to do with B1.

And I don't see what's different about my scenario and the OP. The title of the thread is "blood discovered DURING a TO." If play is already stopped for an issued TO or an injury TO and during that TO blood is discovered on another player then that player would be eligible to remain in the game provided the blood situation was corrected prior to when we were ready to resume play.

That's what I'm doing in my games until one of my assignors directs otherwise.
During a TO all personal are considered bench personnel anyway right? I don't think they need to use a TO to stay in the game in this case.

SNIPERBBB Sun Jan 13, 2013 06:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 871904)
During a TO all personal are considered bench personnel anyway right? I don't think they need to use a TO to stay in the game in this case.

4.34.1 SITUATION:

Team A requests a time-out; at the conclusion of the time-out as the teams are returning to the court, A1 curses at the game officials.

RULING: A1 is assessed a technical foul. The foul will count as one of A1's fouls toward disqualification and toward the team foul count.

COMMENT: During a time-out, A1 is considered a player and not bench personnel.


They are only BP during intermission.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13pm.
Page 3 of 7 12 3 45 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1