Discovered Blood during a TO

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

Why does one team get a free pass when the other doesn't just based on which one you observe first?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why does one team get a free pass when the other doesn't just based o which on you observe first?

I see your point.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I see your point. I have probably been swayed. There is an advantage given to one team and not the other.

If you seriously do not believe that keeping the timeout team B should have had to use is NOT an advantage, then you go right ahead and keep making stuff up.

It will come back to bite you at some point.

[VaTerp]

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.

What you call making things up I call applying the rule intelligently. You and others, even the majority, here can disagree. That's ok.

FWIW I asked two different interpreters and got two different answers so the rule is not as crystal clear as you think.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

And when B uses it's last timeout (the one you let them keep) to set up a play to score the winning goal and A's HC comes unglued causing you to have to toss him and the whole thing ends up in front of an appeals committee, is it still going to be good game management?

Good game management starts by applying the rules which have no leeway correctly. This isn't a judgement call; you don't have a choice other than to "not notice" before B gets a chance to take care of it. But once you've noticed, you're bound by the rule.

By the same token, you can look at the situation, which I proposed in post #35 and nobody answered:

"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 make team B use their last timeout in this situation, or even if they have no timeouts, to allow their player to stay in the game? Pretty sure the HC is going to come unglued here as well (even more so than in your scenario).

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

And when B uses it's last timeout (the one you let them keep) to set up a play to score the winning goal and A's HC comes unglued causing you to have to toss him and the whole thing ends up in front of an appeals committee, is it still going to be good game management?

Good game management starts by applying the rules which have no leeway correctly. This isn't a judgement call; you don't have a choice other than to "not notice" before B gets a chance to take care of it. But once you've noticed, you're bound by the rule.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Yes. Unless his/her coach uses their own timeout to address the blood issue. It really is not that hard.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

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?