Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
I disagree completely with that too. Can you supply a rules reference to back that up, Chuck?
|
Sure. 3-3-6. Notice the difference in language between the two cases. A player shall be directed to leave the game if there is "an excessive amount" of blood on the uniform, or if s/he "has blood on his/her person". When talking about the uniform, the official must determine if the amount of blood is excessive. However, if the blood is on the person, there is no determination to be made. If it's on your skin, you have to go. If it's on the uniform
and it's excessive, you have to go. What is "excessive"? As Camron said, it's excessive if it's transferrable to another person.
Quote:
|
Are you telling me that if you had a player with two small blood spots on his shirt, and blood from those spots were still able to be transferred to another player's skin just by brushing against those spots, you would allow that player to remain in the game?
|
Clearly not. That would fall into the "excessive" category. My point (badly written, I admit now) was that the small amount (two drops) of blood was not transferrable, and so the player was not required to leave the game.
Quote:
|
My understanding was that there was no blood allowed anywhere on a player if there was any possibility that the blood could get on another player.
|
And I never said anything that contradicted that.
If it's transferrable, the player goes. If it's not transferrable, s/he doesn't. I completely agree with that.
If you're saying that
any amount of blood
anywhere on the uniform was deemed to be transferrable, then I disagree with you. That never was the FED interpretation.