Discovered Blood during a TO

[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?

[OKREF]

Had a meeting last night. Asked our area coordinator about this. If play is stopped for an injury and player in other team has blood. He said if they get it fixed before play is to resume he said he would let them stay in the game.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

No, because the situtation was discovered during and remedied before the end of a charged time-out or intermission.

What the OP was asking is whether A1 would have to be removed if the blood situtation was discovered while B1 was being attended to because of an injury (in the OP's case, concussion symptoms). In that situation there's no time-out or intermission in play so, according to 3-3-7, A1 would have to exit the game to have the situation corrected.