Discovered Blood during a TO

[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 Eastshire

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.

The case says nothing about bleeding being controlled before he is directed to leave the game.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The case says nothing about bleeding being controlled before he is directed to leave the game.

He's "making things up."

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The case says nothing about bleeding being controlled before he is directed to leave the game.

How else is the blood not discovered on A1 in (c)?

Originally Posted by VaTerp

He's "making things up."

You would apparently know.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

How else is the blood not discovered on A1 in (c)?

If it is not discovered, nobody has to leave at all. What are you talking about?