Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
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.
|
Nope, Camron did
not say that . I did. Camron said
"The former rule allowed some amount of blood on the shirt. The new rule allows none. That's an incorrect and misleading statement imo. First off, it is
not a new rule; it's the old rule clarified. And the old rule did
not allow any blood anywhere if that blood was transferable. It says that it's a just a clarification( editorial change) on the FED web site also, which is where BillyMac got that cite from. Again, the FED is just clarifying that it really doesn't matter where on a player the blood is, if it's transferable, buh-bye. Also
afaik, you are still allowed
some blood spots on a shirt as long as those spots are dried or chemically-treated so that they are not transferable.
That's the way that I've always understood the rule,right from it's inception, and that's the way that we've been teaching it. I might be wrong, of course. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. But I'd like to see something- anything- in writing that says different.