Discovered Blood during a TO

[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 VaTerp

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.

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.

[VaTerp]

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.

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.

[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 VaTerp

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."

And where would you have gotten such an idea? Perhaps from page 2 of this same thread:

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm looking at it this way. If a stoppage of any kind is already in progress, there is no "game" for the player to leave. I see a kid standing in the huddle with blood on his arm. Before I can say anything, the trainer wipes off the blood and applies a bandage. By the time the "game" resumes, he's ready to go.

Isn't a timeout a part of the game? Maybe so, but even if it is, the player doesn't have to leave it.

"But their player was bleeding, too!"

Is this fair? You be the judge. Why is this any different than any other missed call? You might not see anything at all except the bandage after the fact.

"See! Their player was bleeding, too!"

This is no different than any other missed call.

This rule has other issues. A1 is bleeding, but is contacted by B1, and now you see blood on both, so both have to call the timeout or leave the game. Is this fair?