Discovered Blood during a TO
 

This happened the other night. A1 was injured during a play. She showed signs of a concussion. As she was being helped back to her bench I saw blood on B1's calf and on her shorts. I asked my partner to inform B's coach. B's coach said that he should be given time to fix the blood because we should have caught it sooner. (Nice try). He was very insistent about keeping her in the game.
So the question is if she could have cleaned up within the injury time out could she have stayed in the game without B's coach taking a time out?

Rule 3-4-7 says the player must leave the game unless the the players coach is granted a TO.

Are there exceptions? If you see blood on a player heading off the court for half time would she have to sit the beginning the the 3rd quarter (seems harsh)?

not sure about where you work, but here in illinois, a player showing signs of a concussion is required to leave the game, and cannot return until cleared by proper medical personal (doctor or trainer) so they would have had plenty of time to take care of the blood on the uniform while she was being evaluated for the concussion.

I think you misread the original post...the player with the concussion and the player with blood are players on opposing teams.

yeah, i guess it helps to actually read the whole post not just the first 2 sentences and the title before responding.

I don't know of any.

Happens to everyone...

As for the OP, the coach must use a timeout to keep the player in the game. There is a case play where both A1 and B1 have blood on them, and both coaches are required to use timeouts, run concurrently, to keep their respective player in the game.

As for halftime...no. They can clean it up and player can start the third quarter.

DJ is correct. Once you spot the blood and inform the coach, he must replace her or use a TO to keep her in the game. The "you should have caught it sooner" argument is BS.

Obviously, the coach does not get EXTRA time.

But if play is already stopped for another reason (in this case the injury) and the situation can be corrected before play resumes then why wouldn't you allow the player to stay in the game?

And of course, a player would be able to play at the beginning of the 3rd quarter in the situation above.

Sometimes common sense is your friend.

"...it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied to each play situation."

Do you have a rule or case book citing, or is this your (or your association's) interpretation? It makes sense, and it seems that requiring someone to come out of a game when the game is already stopped to be OO.

3-3-7 is very clear on a bleeding player/player with blood on their uniform leaving the game.

The intent of the rule is to keep other players from getting that person's blood on them so there's no potential spread of disease. Why mess around with a rule like that?

Here in Michigan you can only return if cleared by a Doctor. A trainer does not cut it.

I'm well aware of the intent of the rule, which also has the TO requirement so as not delay play while the player has the blood stop or their uniform cleaned.

But if play has already been stopped to deal with another issue as in the OP's question, and the situation of blood can be corrected before play resumes then what purpose is served by forcing the coach to burn a timeout?

That's not messing around with the rule, it's common sense.

And the fact that someone is asking whether or not a player sent off for blood before halftime has to sit out at the beginning of the 3rd quarter makes me think that the intent and purpose of the rule is not nearly as clear as you think it is.

There is not a perfect book citing for every single variable of every situation, which is why I quoted the language from the rules book about intent and purpose.

The reason a coach has to use a TO to get their player in the game is so that play is not held up while they correct the situation of blood on a player.

If play is already stopped to tend to an injured player and the bleeding player is able to correct the situation before play resumes then what purpose is served by requiring a TO?

This is my individual interpretation and I have had no direction on this from my assignor or rules interpreter. But I'd bet money that neither would quarrel with this. I have had a similar situation in a game where we discovered blood on a kids elbow while another kid had to be tended to on the court and play was stopped.

The player cleaned up his elbow during the injury timeout and before the injured player was even off the court. I checked to make sure bleeding was stopped, there was no blood on his uniform or the court, and when we were ready to resume play and everyone was good to go.

If it is cleaned up by the time the injured player is off the court and we are ready to play I am probably letting them in, if not then they must take a timeout.

The TO requirement really isn't the part of the rule that prevents the delay of play while the blood is being dealt with, the mandatory removal of the player takes care of that. If the coach of that team calls time out to try to remedy the situation, so be it.

No one is forcing the coach to burn a time out. The coach has an option built into the rule. Either the player comes out immediately or he/she can call time out in an effort to keep them in.

Not removing the blood-affected player, especially in the scenario presented in the OP, gives that player's team an advantage. A1 shows signs/symptoms of a concussion so by rule he/she is told to leave the game but B1 has blood on them/their uniform and by rule they either they have to leave the game or their coach needs to call a time out to try to fix the situation and we choose neither? Common sense is one thing but that's unfair to Team A.