Discovered Blood during a TO

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'm well aware of the intent of the rule, which also has the TO requirement so as not delay play while the player has the blood stop or their uniform cleaned.

But if play has already been stopped to deal with another issue as in the OP's question, and the situation of blood can be corrected before play resumes then what purpose is served by forcing the coach to burn a timeout?

That's not messing around with the rule, it's common sense.

And the fact that someone is asking whether or not a player sent off for blood before halftime has to sit out at the beginning of the 3rd quarter makes me think that the intent and purpose of the rule is not nearly as clear as you think it is.

The TO requirement really isn't the part of the rule that prevents the delay of play while the blood is being dealt with, the mandatory removal of the player takes care of that. If the coach of that team calls time out to try to remedy the situation, so be it.

No one is forcing the coach to burn a time out. The coach has an option built into the rule. Either the player comes out immediately or he/she can call time out in an effort to keep them in.

Not removing the blood-affected player, especially in the scenario presented in the OP, gives that player's team an advantage. A1 shows signs/symptoms of a concussion so by rule he/she is told to leave the game but B1 has blood on them/their uniform and by rule they either they have to leave the game or their coach needs to call a time out to try to fix the situation and we choose neither? Common sense is one thing but that's unfair to Team A.