Discovered Blood during a TO

[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.

[jeremy341a]

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

Due to this if B1 is discovered to have blood on him during A's timeout shouldn't he/she be allowed to return if the blood is stopped. Is says he/she shouldn't be allowed to return to competition until cleaned or a timeout is taken. I don't think sitting during a timeout is considered to be in competition is it? Therefore shouldn't they be allowed to return to compeition at the conclusion of the timeout, as long as blood is taken care of, even though their team didn't take the time out?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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

Due to this if B1 is discovered to have blood on him during A's timeout shouldn't he/she be allowed to return if the blood is stopped. Is says he/she shouldn't be allowed to return to competition until cleaned or a timeout is taken. I don't think sitting during a timeout is considered to be in competition is it? Therefore shouldn't they be allowed to return to compeition at the conclusion of the timeout, as long as blood is taken care of, even though their team didn't take the time out?

I would let them stay.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by 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.

Did you tell him that he was making things up, not supported by rule, and creating and unfair advantage for one team?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Did you tell him that he was making things up, not supported by rule, and creating and unfair advantage for one team?

No.

[JetMetFan]

So...as a father of 16-year-olds and an ex-husband I'm well-versed in being incorrect about things . That being said, here's the definitive word from Peter Webb, IAABO Coordinator of Interpreters.

As you are aware, 3.3.7 is in place to:

1) Deal with today's concern about blood exposure.
2) Point out that the game can not be stopped & held up for solely dealing with blood without being ganted and charged with a time-out.

The rule concern is the stoppage of play & holding up the game for issues other than injury, S &T Table issues, Correctable Error situations, etc.

The situation described within your question indicates that the game is not stopped for a "Blood/Bleeding" situation. The blood issue is a sidebar in the situation. If B-1's blood issue can be remedied during the time allotted to attend to A-1 and process a substitute then there is no Time-Out required of Team B to keep B-1 in the game.

Additionally, a time-out cannot be granted until after the concussion/injury issue is completed. During the waiting time period it is conceivable that the blood issue could be taken care of and there no longer would be a blood issue.

Again, in the situation which you cite, the game is not held up to attend to a blood issue.

[OKREF]

This is what I was trying to say earlier. Game wasn't stopped for blood. Anyway good discussion. And it seems your guy agreed with our Area Coordinator.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

So...as a father of 16-year-olds and an ex-husband I'm well-versed in being incorrect about things . That being said, here's the definitive word from Peter Webb, IAABO Coordinator of Interpreters.

Somehow I would feel better about this had I not blatantly kicked #5 in your IAABO not so fab five thread. And as the R who tossed it no less.

Anyways, thanks for posting this.

[VaTerp]

Just wanted to add that my suggested way of handling this and reasoning given, which were said to be making things up, contrary to rules, giving an unfair advantage, etc, were directly in line with the reasoning issued here by the IAABO coordinator of interpreters.

A few things I hope we take away from this thread:

1) The rules book states that it is important to know the intent and purpose of the rules so that they may be applied intelligently to each play situation. There are too many instances where I see officials not doing this and going by a "letter of the law" interp that defies intent, purpose, and common sense.

2) The case book is an invaluable resource but it is impossible to cover every variable of every situation. We should make sure case plays apply before citing them for a given situation. Sometimes officials need to look at #1 above and make reasoned decisions.

3) If you are going to be arrogant, condescending, and dismissive in an argument you should probably make sure you are right.