Discovered Blood during a TO

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If I see blood and it isn't cleaned up before I tell the coach to get it cleaned up, the player is sitting unless a TO is used. The HC is unlikely to come unglued because, unlike the other scenario, I have actually enforced the rule rather than allowed his opponent to break the rule. And even if he did, I have the rules with me, rather than against me at the appeal.

Why does this change the situation? The player was still bleeding.

[just another ref]

Of this I am certain, a head coach coming unglued is not a good measure of what call to make or not make.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Of this I am certain, a head coach coming unglued is not a good measure of what call to make or not make.

True indeed. I was only eluding to it as a response to Eastshire's post.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Respectfully disagree here. He's gonna become much more unglued here than in your scenario IMO.

Like I said, I asked an interpreter and an assignor/interpreter both these questions.

The first agreed with what many of you are saying here. That 3-3-7 requires them the coach to use the TO regardless.

The latter said to use common sense and allow the player to play if situation is properly addressed before we are ready to resume.

As I said before, despite what some think, the rules book and case book do not address every single variable of every situation. Sometimes there is some grey area that requires officials to apply the rule intelligently and make a decision.

I believe this is one of those situations and am confident I'm on solid ground should such a situation present itself to me on the court. You and others may disagree. That's fine. Maybe we'll see, maybe we won't.

I agree there are areas of gray and in them common sense should be used. This is not a gray area and what you suggest is not common sense or even fair. Your mileage obviously varies, but I see you as deliberately handing a significant advantage to one team.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Why does this change the situation? The player was still bleeding.

The rule requires a player who is directed to leave the game to sit or buy their way in with a TO. If the bleeding is controlled before I direct him to leave the game, I'm not directing him to leave the game as he is no longer bleeding. See 3.3.7c for the case on this.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The rule requires a player who is directed to leave the game to sit or buy their way in with a TO. If the bleeding is controlled before I direct him to leave the game, I'm not directing him to leave the game as he is no longer bleeding. See 3.3.7c for the case on this.

The case says nothing about bleeding being controlled before he is directed to leave the game.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The case says nothing about bleeding being controlled before he is directed to leave the game.

He's "making things up."

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The case says nothing about bleeding being controlled before he is directed to leave the game.

How else is the blood not discovered on A1 in (c)?

Originally Posted by VaTerp

He's "making things up."

You would apparently know.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

How else is the blood not discovered on A1 in (c)?

If it is not discovered, nobody has to leave at all. What are you talking about?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

Once again ... it's not possible for two separate events to occur at exactly the same time. Simultaneously, in this rule, does not mean "at exactly the same time", but rather "during the same interval". So yes, it DOES mean 3.3.7 applies here.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Once again ... it's not possible for two separate events to occur at exactly the same time. Simultaneously, in this rule, does not mean "at exactly the same time", but rather "during the same interval". So yes, it DOES mean 3.3.7 applies here.

You said this in another thread and I likely missed the answer but why not? I googled it and found a physics reference to "relativity of simultaneity." But that does not say what you are saying.

And I'm done with this argument here relative to the case play. I have stated my position and after talking with two different interpreters, one of whom is an assignor, I am comfortable with it.

I realize and respect the fact that others here disagree.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Once again ... it's not possible for two separate events to occur at exactly the same time. Simultaneously, in this rule, does not mean "at exactly the same time", but rather "during the same interval". So yes, it DOES mean 3.3.7 applies here.

Agreed. I think the interval ends when team A is granted their timeout. If B1 also had blood on his person which is not discovered until this point, he should just consider himself lucky.

What if a player scratches off a scab during the timeout and you see blood? Does he have to sit out?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What if a player scratches off a scab during the timeout and you see blood? Does he have to sit out?

Yes.

Unless his/her coach uses their own timeout to address the blood issue.

It really is not that hard.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Unless his/her coach uses their own timeout to address the blood issue.

It really is not that hard.

I agree. It's not that hard.

Originally Posted by just another ref

3.3.6 D: A5 is injured as the horn sounds to end the first quarter and the coach is beckoned by an official on to the court to attend to A5.

Ruling: The intermission should begin when A5 is removed from the court. No substitute is required when A5 is ready to play to start the second quarter.
When A5 is not ready, a substitute should report before the warning horn or a timeout may be requested by Team A to keep A5 in the game.

If the injured guy is not required to sit out because of another convenient stoppage of the game, why should the bleeding guy have to sit out?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I agree. It's not that hard.




If the injured guy is not required to sit out because of another convenient stoppage of the game, why should the bleeding guy have to sit out?

The game was stopped then no matter what. The intermission is essentially a free timeout to both teams.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The game was stopped then no matter what. The intermission is essentially a free timeout to both teams.

True. And if A has called a timeout, it is a free timeout for team B.