blood on sock

[Mike L]

An intresting philosophical question. Was the clock stopped to administer the penalty or was it stopped because of a discovered injured player? If the clock was stopped for the penalty and it was accepted, I think an argument can be made that the timeout isn't even needed if they can fix it and get him right back out.
Personally, I'd prefer to have him sit out a down either way.

[stegenref]

The clock was stopped to administer the penalty. As a matter of fact, he was the team captain that went up to the WH for his choices....that's when I noticed the blood on his knee.

[Reffing Rev.]

Bleeding counts as an injury to me, and if an official is involved in the "discovery" of an injury then he's got to sit a play.

[Forksref]

Was the team the Boston Red Sox?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

An intresting philosophical question. Was the clock stopped to administer the penalty or was it stopped because of a discovered injured player? If the clock was stopped for the penalty and it was accepted, I think an argument can be made that the timeout isn't even needed if they can fix it and get him right back out.
Personally, I'd prefer to have him sit out a down either way.

It appears the determining factor, whether a player MUST sit out a play is not related to clock status. The salient point is whether the player was sent out of the game by an official, or voluntarily took himself out of the game without the intervention of an official.

[whitehat]

Another philisophical dilemna is if this player (lets say starting QB) at a critical time in the game should be told to get out right then and clean it up. Please don't repeat the rule... I know what the rule is...

Lets says the QB has played with that blood on his knee for a few plays (not that this matters, but verily likely scenario), we just now spot it, are we going to tell him right now, on 4th and goal with a tie score and 20 seconds to go in the game to go sit out a play and clean off his knee?

My personal philosphy makes me very reluctant to do that.

What think ye my fellow zebras, especially R's?

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

It appears the determining factor, whether a player MUST sit out a play is not related to clock status. The salient point is whether the player was sent out of the game by an official, or voluntarily took himself out of the game without the intervention of an official.

Actually, the rules state differently. 3-5-10a being the relevant rule.
A time out occurs when
1) injured player is discovered
a) While the ball is dead AND for whom the RFP is delayed or
b) For whom the clock is stopped.

So, if the clock was stopped to enforce a penalty, the clock stoppage requirements of the rule are not met unless it takes more time to "fix" the injury than it does to enforce the penalty and mark the ball ready. Which for most injuries is going to be the case as the coaches/trainers do their bit for the guy hurt on the ground. But for a quick cut that needs to be covered, could happen.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Actually, the rules state differently. 3-5-10a being the relevant rule.
A time out occurs when
1) injured player is discovered
a) While the ball is dead AND for whom the RFP is delayed or
b) For whom the clock is stopped.

So, if the clock was stopped to enforce a penalty, the clock stoppage requirements of the rule are not met unless it takes more time to "fix" the injury than it does to enforce the penalty and mark the ball ready. Which for most injuries is going to be the case as the coaches/trainers do their bit for the guy hurt on the ground. But for a quick cut that needs to be covered, could happen.

Mike, I don't want to belabor a point, but you need to read all of NF: 3-5-10-a. "A time occurs when: An apparently injured player is discovered by the official while the ball is dead and the clock is stopped and for whom the RFP signal is delayed, or for whom the clock is stopped. The player shall be replaced for at least one down, unless the halftime or an overtime intermission occurs. This time out, if not charged, is an officials TO."

NF: 3-5-10-c carries this concept directly to the issue of bleeding and blood on the person or uniform.

If a player takes himself out of action, without the intervention of a game official, he is NOT covered by these rules. If his team elects to call a charged TO to attend to this player, he may participate in the next play. If the apparent injury situation is "discovered by an official" the player MAY NOT participate in the following play, unless there is a halftime or overtime intermission. His team CANNOT buy him back into the game, without missing, "at least one down" with a TO.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Mike, I don't want to belabor a point, but you need to read all of NF: 3-5-10-a. "A time occurs when: An apparently injured player is discovered by the official while the ball is dead and the clock is stopped and for whom the RFP signal is delayed, or for whom the clock is stopped. The player shall be replaced for at least one down, unless the halftime or an overtime intermission occurs. This time out, if not charged, is an officials TO."

NF: 3-5-10-c carries this concept directly to the issue of bleeding and blood on the person or uniform.

If a player takes himself out of action, without the intervention of a game official, he is NOT covered by these rules. If his team elects to call a charged TO to attend to this player, he may participate in the next play. If the apparent injury situation is "discovered by an official" the player MAY NOT participate in the following play, unless there is a halftime or overtime intermission. His team CANNOT buy him back into the game, without missing, "at least one down" with a TO.

I am reading all the rule. You are not. Your interpretation stops at discovered by the official and ignores the timing aspects that accompany the rule.
"C" only makes the bleeding player be considered as injured as under "A".