Color Me Confused ...
 

So? Let me get this straight. When an official observes blood on a player, that player must either sit out a tick, or the coach must request, and be granted a timeout? Even if said blood is observed during halftime, or an intermission, or during a charged time out, by either team, that has already been requested, and granted, for another reason (other than blood)?

I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing, with anybody at this point, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around this situation.

Correct. 3-3-7 says the player shall be directed to leave the game until the bleeding is stopped, the wound is covered, the uniform and/or body is appropriately cleaned, and/or the uniform is changed before returning to competition unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out.

If it's observed during an intermission or a charged time-out the bleeding has to be stopped, etc. before the intermission/time-out ends for the player to continue. If A1's coach wants to keep A1 in the game at the end of the intermission/time-out, Team A must call a time-out and correct the situation before the time-out ends. If it was observed during a time-out charged to Team B for blood then Team A would have to use one of its time-outs for A1 to continue without sitting out.

Still Confused In Connecticut ...
 

So, Team B requests, and is granted, a thirty second timeout, let's say to give Team B players a rest, and then during said timeout, the official observes A1 with blood on his arm, points it out to the head coach of Team A, and A1 is bandaged, and ready to play, before the time out ends ...

What happens next? Does he have to sit a tick if Team A doesn't request, and be granted, a timeout?

Had a meeting last night. Asked our area coordinator about this. If play is stopped for an injury and player in other team has blood. He said if they get it fixed before play is to resume he said he would let them stay in the game.

3-3-7 says the player shall be directed to leave the game until the bleeding is stopped, the wound is covered, the uniform and/or body is appropriately cleaned, and/or the uniform is changed before returning to competition

Due to this if B1 is discovered to have blood on him during A's timeout shouldn't he/she be allowed to return if the blood is stopped. Is says he/she shouldn't be allowed to return to competition until cleaned or a timeout is taken. I don't think sitting during a timeout is considered to be in competition is it? Therefore shouldn't they be allowed to return to compeition at the conclusion of the timeout, as long as blood is taken care of, even though their team didn't take the time out?

I would let them stay.

No, because the situtation was discovered during and remedied before the end of a charged time-out or intermission.

What the OP was asking is whether A1 would have to be removed if the blood situtation was discovered while B1 was being attended to because of an injury (in the OP's case, concussion symptoms). In that situation there's no time-out or intermission in play so, according to 3-3-7, A1 would have to exit the game to have the situation corrected.

What is the intent of the rule? I think it is basically the game can not be held up to tend to a bleeding player without the expense of the time out. If the blood problem can be fixed without the game being held up due to the blood problem it seems as if they shouldn't have to come out.

It does say she was being helped back to bench. So we can assume that there was a stoppage of play and coach/trainer came out. I would give team B player the opportunity to fix it. If it isn't fixed by the time we are to resume play, then I would make them take a time out or sub.

This is exactly right.
Before this rule, if there was a player bleeding or with blood on the uniform, we would stop the game, take the player to the bench and if it was minor then the trainer would stop the blood or change the uniform. Problem is that minor still held up the game for 1 minute or two and coaches would use this as an unofficial timeout to coach up the kids while the trainer fixed the blood issue. So now we don't do that. If we notice blood on a player during the game we send to the bench without otherwise delaying the game for an extended period. Common sense and knowledge of why a rule is in place, which I can tell after reading 6 pages on this topic, seems to be lacking. If the game is otherwise stopped and the problem can be fixed then great. If it can't be, we're not delaying the game further without use of a timeout or the player can sit while we play on until it is fixed.

Did you tell him that he was making things up, not supported by rule, and creating and unfair advantage for one team?

No.

So...as a father of 16-year-olds and an ex-husband I'm well-versed in being incorrect about things :o. That being said, here's the definitive word from Peter Webb, IAABO Coordinator of Interpreters.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. Game wasn't stopped for blood. Anyway good discussion. And it seems your guy agreed with our Area Coordinator.

Somehow I would feel better about this had I not blatantly kicked #5 in your IAABO not so fab five thread. And as the R who tossed it no less.

Anyways, thanks for posting this.