The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 25, 2004, 10:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 209
Question

I know that in most sports there is a rule that prevents players from playing with blood on their uniform. Is this true in Major League Baseball? I could have seen LaRussa bringing this up in an effort to try to throw off Schilling's concentration. I am sure that it wouldn't have worked, but it might have been worth a try.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 25, 2004, 11:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
There is no "Blood Rule" under OBR. There is mention of blood on uniforms in the PBUC which is similar to the COMMUNICATABLE DISEASE PROCEDURES as in FED.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 25, 2004, 12:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
I did a search on "blood" in the MLBUM and came up empty.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 25, 2004, 07:15pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
From PBUC: effective "March 17, 1993, all Minor League Baseball umpires shall abide by the M.L.B. policy regarding incidents in which a player begins bleeding during a game. As the policy states, "It is important for umpires to know that some precautions will be taken that may cause brief delays in a game. For example, if a garment(s) is penetrated by blood or other potentially infectious materials, the garment(s) shall be removed immediately or as soon as feasible." Umpires are instructed to use good common sense in applying this directive."

The umpires apparently used good common sense to recognize a situation where a minor amount of bleeding was not detrimental to a major league game. And LaRussa apparently figured the same thing, and that the umpires would not tolerate excessive complaining about it.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 25, 2004, 09:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally posted by DG
From PBUC: effective "March 17, 1993, all Minor League Baseball umpires shall abide by the M.L.B. policy regarding incidents in which a player begins bleeding during a game. As the policy states, "It is important for umpires to know that some precautions will be taken that may cause brief delays in a game. For example, if a garment(s) is penetrated by blood or other potentially infectious materials, the garment(s) shall be removed immediately or as soon as feasible." Umpires are instructed to use good common sense in applying this directive."

The umpires apparently used good common sense to recognize a situation where a minor amount of bleeding was not detrimental to a major league game. And LaRussa apparently figured the same thing, and that the umpires would not tolerate excessive complaining about it.

For whatever reason, the MLBUM doesn't include that.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 09:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 123
Send a message via AIM to Peruvian Send a message via Yahoo to Peruvian
Quote:
From PBUC: effective "March 17, 1993, all Minor League Baseball umpires shall abide by the M.L.B. policy regarding incidents in which a player begins bleeding during a game. As the policy states, "It is important for umpires to know that some precautions will be taken that may cause brief delays in a game. For example, if a garment(s) is penetrated by blood or other potentially infectious materials, the garment(s) shall be removed immediately or as soon as feasible."
It should be noted that it is highly possible that the blood on his sock was only visible to the FOX cameras. Unless you're looking for it, as an umpire, I probably wouldn't see it, being that most of it was covered by his stirrup.

  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 10:30am
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 554
Peruvian - I love the quote, but what happens when...

Catcher - (turning to look at the plate ump) [loudly] "Where was that pitch at?"

Plate Ump - (while sweeping the plate) "Didn't your English teacher ever teach you not to end a sentence with a preposition?"

Catcher - "No, my coach instructs English, but he was too busy teaching us that any ball that passes through the zone is a strike."

  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 26, 2004, 10:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Peruvian - I love the quote, but what happens when...

Catcher - (turning to look at the plate ump) [loudly] "Where was that pitch at?"

Plate Ump - (while sweeping the plate) "Didn't your English teacher ever teach you not to end a sentence with a preposition?"
The ending I've always heard is:

Catcher - "OK, where was that pitch at, A$$HOLE!?!"
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 30, 2006, 02:16am
PWL PWL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 169
There is something in the FED rules about blood on the uniform.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1