Discovered Blood during a TO

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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]

3-3-7 Notes...you are making stuff up.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[Eastshire]

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.

You are making things up. You've somehow determined that the game ceases to exist when the ball is dead. It's a novel concept and one I'm fairly sure you're only using in regards to winning this argument.

Once an referee discovers blood, the rule is clear: a TO must be used in order for the player to remain in the game.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You are making things up. You've somehow determined that the game ceases to exist when the ball is dead. It's a novel concept and one I'm fairly sure you're only using in regards to winning this argument.

Once an referee discovers blood, the rule is clear: a TO must be used in order for the player to remain in the game.

By the book you are correct. However if play is stopped for A1 concussion, and B1 has blood I am going to let then stay if it is fixed during that time. I think that is just good game management. If it isn't fixed when it is time to resume play then they have to take a time out to keep them in.

[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?