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.

3.3.6 D: A5 is injured as the horn sounds to end the first quarter and the coach is beckoned by an official on to the court to attend to A5.

Ruling: The intermission should begin when A5 is removed from the court. No substitute is required when A5 is ready to play to start the second quarter.
When A5 is not ready, a substitute should report before the warning horn or a timeout may be requested by Team A to keep A5 in the game.

So if the player here can remain in the game without spending a timeout, I don't see why the player in the OP can't stay in as well.


The question in the above case: What if A5 is not ready, and a timeout won't make him ready, but no sub reported before the warning horn? Do we have to charge Team A with a timeout anyway?

Completely disagree.

There is no unfair advantage being given.

The player with symptoms of a concussion needs to be further evaluated by appropriate health care professional. The player with blood does not. Two separate rules there.

Sitch/Question: A coach calls a timeout and as a player is walking to his bench you notice blood on his arm. Are you saying that you will not allow that player to return at the conclusion of the timeout provided that the blood situation has been taken care of?

Different scenario but...I will tell the coach that player has to have the blood situation taken care of by the end of the time out or he/she needs to be subbed out.

And you're right, there are two separate rules governing these situations. Both say the player must leave but one allows the player to return without medical evaluation.

Back to the situation in the OP: A1 is removed for the concussion situation. B1 is allowed to stay in the game. The coach of Team A says "Hey, B1 was supposed to go out too because he was bleeding/had blood on him." The response would be...?

The response would be, "Coach we stopped play when A1 displayed signs of a concussion. The blood situation with B1 was discovered during this stoppage and taken care of before we were ready to resume play." The stoppage in play was because A1 was injured and had nothing to do with B1.

And I don't see what's different about my scenario and the OP. The title of the thread is "blood discovered DURING a TO." If play is already stopped for an issued TO or an injury TO and during that TO blood is discovered on another player then that player would be eligible to remain in the game provided the blood situation was corrected prior to when we were ready to resume play.

That's what I'm doing in my games until one of my assignors directs otherwise.

No offfense to Scooby but the title of the OP should be "Blood discovered during a dead ball" or "Blood discovered while another player is injured." There's no time out in play in the OP. There's also nothing in the NFHS rule book that allows a player to remain in the game if a blood situation is corrected within a certain time frame unless that player's team calls time out.

There are also case plays in which A1 and B1 are injured and their respective coaches - after being beckoned - want to keep them in the game. The rules require that each coach uses a time out to do so. The situation in the OP is only slightly different in that A1's return isn't subject to the time out parameter.

There is no charged timeout but we essentially have an "injury timeout" and stoppage in play.

The rule says the player shall be directed to leave the game. In the OP's situation the player was directed to leave the game. It just so happened that it was during a stoppage of play for another situation. I see nothing in the rules that mandates B1 must remain out of the game if the blood situation has been corrected before play is ready to resume.

The case plays you reference are not relevant because play was stopped and coaches were beckoned FOR those injured players. In the OP situation play was not stopped FOR B1.

I think it's as simple as applying common sense to the rule. Again, what purpose is served by forcing the player to remain out of the game if the blood situation has been remedied before play, which has been stopped for another reason, is set to resume?

IMO you have a way too narrow interpretation of the rule that defies common sense. But we can just agree to disagree.

Once a player is directed to leave (and the coach hasn't taken a TO), they can't return until the clock has run.

I still argue that if the player is "directed to leave" for blood during an extended stoppage in play for another reason then that player can "return" provided the situation has been remedied by the time play resumes.

Is that exception explicitly spelled out in the rules book? No. But again every single variable of every situation does not have specific language or a case book play to address it. Sometimes we have to use common sense and apply the rule intelligently to a given situation.

IMO this is one of those instances. Not everyone agrees with me and that's fine. This is what I have done and will continue to do until directed otherwise.

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.

I agree with this take.

Peace

I think all of us would probably handle your situation this way. But your situation is different than the OP and VaTerp's point...in both of those the player was directed to leave the game. The rules on that player coming back in are clear - wait for time to run or call a timeout. VaTerp is going to handle it his own way, which is fine for him, but he has no basis within the rules to do it that way and is contradicting what the rules say.

The OP doesn't say the player was directed to leave.

I think me and JAR are basically saying the same thing.

I fail to see how what I am saying has no basis within the rules or that it contradicts the rules but whatever.

It does say that his partner told the coach...wonder what he told that coach?

And VaTerp, the rules regarding this situation have been stated several times and are clear. You are choosing to handle a situation where you tell the coach the player has blood and must be taken care of in a way which is not supported by the rules.

That's the whole problem. In the OP, I say the player should not have been directed to leave.

If you see a player take his shirttail out during a
timeout/injury stoppage/other break in the action pause, would you direct him to leave the game?

Im saying the same thing as JAR, that if play is stopped then there is essentially no game for the player to be directed from.

And for the last time, I think my interpretation is a clear common sense application of the rule which is supported.

You notice that A1 is bleeding and stop the game. The coach indicates the s/he'll use a TO to try to keep A1 in the game.

Just after you report the TO, you notice B1 is also bleeding.

Will you let B1 stay in the game without a TO from Coach B?

I would. Two separate incidents.

You call a foul on B1 for holding A1 in the post. Just after the whistle, you realize A2 has been standing in the lane for 11 seconds.

Them's the breaks.

Yes.

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 insist that time has to run off of the clock before A1 is allowed to "re-enter" the game?

Sounds Good ...
 

Sit a tick?

No. Timeout only applies to A. If B1 wants to stay B coach must call TO.

This is the better way to put it.

If play is already stopped for an extended period due to a charged timeout, player injury, or another situation then I'm essentially telling the coach to get the blood situation corrected not directing the player to leave the game.

The intent and purpose of the rule is to address the blood situation with as little disruption of the game as possible. If it can be addressed during the course of stoppage for another reason then what purpose is served by insisting that the player must sit out?

Nobody has answered that question.

I agree. The play was already stopped for injury. If they get fixed prior to the end of the injury stoppage, I am letting them stay.

My point guard get slammed into and has the wind knocked out of him. You beckon me onto the court. He gets up and is ready to go, but you tell me that I have to take a timeout in order for him to stay in the game. I request a timeout.

As you are walking to the table, I point out to you that my opponent's point guard is bleeding from his elbow. You tell me you will take care of it and you tell the other coach about the blood. At the end of the timeout, both point guards are ready to go, but you have only required me to use a timeout to keep my player in the game. The other coach just got a freebie from you because you won't handle it according to rule.

And you don't think that is an advantage for that other coach?

No, he didnt get a "freebie" from me b/c I didnt handle it according to YOUR interpretation of the rule.

He didnt have to use a TO because as a crew we did not discover the blood on his player until after an awarded TO. But as JAR said those are the breaks.

And if the blood is discovered prior to the TO being awarded then you could consider it a stoppage to address both situations simultaneously, in which case both coaches would be required to take a TO to keep their players in the game.

3-3-7 Notes...you are making stuff up.

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.

During a TO all personal are considered bench personnel anyway right? I don't think they need to use a TO to stay in the game in this case.

4.34.1 SITUATION:

Team A requests a time-out; at the conclusion of the time-out as the teams are returning to the court, A1 curses at the game officials.

RULING: A1 is assessed a technical foul. The foul will count as one of A1's fouls toward disqualification and toward the team foul count.

COMMENT: During a time-out, A1 is considered a player and not bench personnel.


They are only BP during intermission.

Yep.

If player A has blood on their uniform would they be able to switch into a new uniform with a new number? I saw it in the Illinois game the other night so I figure it is OK for the NCAA but what about high school?

Yes and penalty free.

New Number ...
 

After the scorer, and an official, are properly notified. I'm surprised that the NFHS doesn't require notification to the other team. It must be pretty difficult to guard against number 24's great three point shot from the left side, as you were coached during the halftime intermission, when number 24 is actually number 15?

And this from one of my IAABO interpreters regarding A1 suffering concussion symptoms then the discovery that B1 has blood on their uniform while A1 is being attended to...

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.

By the book you are correct. However if play is stopped for A1 concussion, and B1 has blood I am going to let then stay if it is fixed during that time. I think that is just good game management. If it isn't fixed when it is time to resume play then they have to take a time out to keep them in.

Why does one team get a free pass when the other doesn't just based on which one you observe first?

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.

I see your point.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

"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?

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.

Why does this change the situation? The player was still bleeding.

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.

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.


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.

He's "making things up."

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

You would apparently know.

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

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.

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?

Yes.

Unless his/her coach uses their own timeout to address the blood issue.

It really is not that hard.

I agree. It's not that hard.


If the injured guy is not required to sit out because of another convenient stoppage of the game, why should the bleeding guy have to sit out?

The game was stopped then no matter what. The intermission is essentially a free timeout to both teams.

True. And if A has called a timeout, it is a free timeout for team B.

Color Me Confused ...
 

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.

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.

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.

Still Confused In Connecticut ...
 

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?

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.

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.

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.

What is the intent of the rule? I think it is basically the game can not be held up to tend to a bleeding player without the expense of the time out. If the blood problem can be fixed without the game being held up due to the blood problem it seems as if they shouldn't have to come out.

It does say she was being helped back to bench. So we can assume that there was a stoppage of play and coach/trainer came out. I would give team B player the opportunity to fix it. If it isn't fixed by the time we are to resume play, then I would make them take a time out or sub.

This is exactly right.
Before this rule, if there was a player bleeding or with blood on the uniform, we would stop the game, take the player to the bench and if it was minor then the trainer would stop the blood or change the uniform. Problem is that minor still held up the game for 1 minute or two and coaches would use this as an unofficial timeout to coach up the kids while the trainer fixed the blood issue. So now we don't do that. If we notice blood on a player during the game we send to the bench without otherwise delaying the game for an extended period. Common sense and knowledge of why a rule is in place, which I can tell after reading 6 pages on this topic, seems to be lacking. If the game is otherwise stopped and the problem can be fixed then great. If it can't be, we're not delaying the game further without use of a timeout or the player can sit while we play on until it is fixed.

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

No.

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

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.

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.

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.