Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
That was a fully correct statement and the case play cited by Chuck backs it up.
The new rule requires that a player leave with any amount of blood...even if it dried 3 weeks ago. If there is blood the player must leave.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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 did allow non-transferable blood, however. The new rule allows none...transferable or not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
It doesn't matter what they call it...they materially changed the meaning of the rule. That is not a clarification.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
No, they're saying if there is blood, ANY BLOOD, the player must leave. There is no language to allow non-transferable blood to remain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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. |
"any" is not the same as "some".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
That is the way I understood it (the old rule) too, but the new wording doesn't agree with that.