|
How many of us had the experience of routinely enforcing a common rule with no problem and then have the game in which doing the same mundane task causes a player/coach/etc to go completely insane? Consider the "Blood Rule".
NF rule 3-3-6. A player who is bleeding, has an open wound, has an excessive amount of blood on his/her uniform, or has blood on his her person, shall be directed to leave the game, unless timeout is requested...
Most of us have no problem recognizing a player bleeding and the other blood related issues cited in the rule but what about the phrase "has an open wound".
All too often I have seen officials notice an open wound and as a test have the player touch the area. If dry (as in no red to indicate bleeding) they let player continue to be in the game. I am even guilty of doing this.
Although not in the body of the rules the Communicable Disease Procedures says the wound MUST be covered.
Easier said than done.
Last weekend, while officiating in the CT Starter Girls Summer Classic I noticed a player with a big red spot on the middle part of her lower lip. I asked her if she was bleeding and she became quite agitated. She said she was OK and walked away. Her temper/emotions escalated when I pressed the matter further by asking a second time. It turns out she had a huge canker sore (her explanation) that got red but did not bleed. During a dead ball she would touch the neck area of her uniform to her lip to dry it in an effort to ease the pain.
Can you cover a wound to the lips? Is the risk of infecting another player with a communicable disease just as likely through saliva as blood? Do you let her continue to play?
I let her play and did not press the matter further so as not to embarrass the young lady. I mentally noted that the cold sore may just have been something that followed her menstrual cycle which explained why she did not wish to talk about it to a male official.
During the same tournament I heard of another official who was not as sensitive. He pressed the matter and made the player go out. As she was sitting on the bench, the official tried to explain to her the rationale of the rule as it pertains to communicable diseases, she became highly emotional and visibly upset. Her coach sees her reaction and accuses the official of baiting his girl so she wouldn't be able to play causing the team to lose. The official now tries to explain to the coach who now is not in the mood to listen to anything. During the verbal exchange there is contact between the two which the official perceived to be an intentional bump and he ejected the coach. A simple substitution ended up in a delay of over 15 minutes to get the situation back under control.
What if the cold sore was actually a symptom of a highly contagious venereal disease? The risk of transmitting this disease is no less than that of transmitting HIV/AIDS/HEPATITUS which prompted the Communicable Disease Procedure or "Blood Rule". We enforce the blood rule by sight. Problem is we can not determine by sight only whether the cold sore is a symptom of a non-contagious disease or a contagious one. Yet in this case we always assume the former.
How would you handle the open wound on the lips? Does your answer change if you know the player actually does have a communicable disease?
|