Blood Rule

nybarefs · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 21, 2004, 06:06pm

Blood Rule Interpretation. (FED)

White (#22) has blood on jersey (soiled). During the game, this is an easy call. Player goes to bench, substitute enters until uniform is cleaned/changed. Coach can get him back in with a time-out.

However, here is the situation that happened the other night:

Before the tipoff of the 2nd Overtime, I noticed the #22 (team's leading scorer) has blood on jersey, I walk him over to the bench to get a new jersey. We announce to the book that White #22 is now #24. I allowed him to return to the floor. I do not charge white with a time-out.

I used two schools of thought there. 1) We were between quarters (which is kind of like a time-out) rather than stopping the game for the blood. 2) It was the right thing for the game (2OT's).

For whatever it is worth the Green coach's only concern was whether or not the original #24 would be allowed to participate in the game.

Here is the question: What is the technically correct way to administer the situation and how would you have handled that situation? Perhaps they are different answers.

Jurassic Referee · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 21, 2004, 06:33pm

The way that you handled it was fine. Rules reference is case book play 3.3.6SitA.

Btw, welcome to the Forum.

ChuckElias · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 21, 2004, 07:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by nybarefs
Blood Rule Interpretation. (FED)

White (#22) has blood on jersey (soiled). During the game, this is an easy call. Player goes to bench, substitute enters until uniform is cleaned/changed.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but simply having blood on the uniform (soiled) is not reason to remove the player or to change the jersey. The clothing only needs to be replaced if it is saturated with blood, meaning that the blood is able to be transferrd from the jersey to another person or piece of clothing.

ChuckElias · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 21, 2004, 07:57pm

FED 3-3-6 says if there's "an excessive amount of blood" on the uniform, the player shall be directed to leave. The case 3.3.6 also uses the word "excessive". So, as I said above, you shouldn't make somebody leave just for a spot of noticeable blood.

Stan · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 11:15am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
FED 3-3-6 says if there's "an excessive amount of blood" on the uniform, the player shall be directed to leave. The case 3.3.6 also uses the word "excessive". So, as I said above, you shouldn't make somebody leave just for a spot of noticeable blood.

Chuck, Excessive would imply that everybody notices it, maybe everybody did, I can't tell from the origional post.
Two questions: #1 Assuming the blood on the jersey was excessive, did nybarefs handle the situation properly? FWIW I think he did. #2 How do you determine excessive?

Thanks, Stan

DJ · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 12:13pm

You are the official and what you decide is excessive is the standard. Again the common sense goes a long ways. To me blood on the uniform is excessive if I can see it. They now have the option of changing jerseys or putting some kind of disenfectant on it to kill the microbe.

ChuckElias · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 01:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ
You are the official and what you decide is excessive is the standard.

DJ, this is simply not true. When the blood guidelines were first adopted by the FED, one of the things they addressed was this exact question. What is "excessive" blood? It is an amount that can be transferred from the uniform to another person or uniform. In other words, if you can touch it with a cloth and come away with blood on the cloth, that's excessive. If it's completely contained by the uniform and doesn't come off, then it's not excessive.

And yes, I believe the original poster handled the situation correctly. Send the player out of the game until the problem is resolved. The coach may take a time-out and keep the player in the game (as long as the problem can be resolved within the time-out period).

DJ · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 02:14pm

Chuck, my excessive blood is my excessive blood and your excessive blood is your excessive blood. When blood is excessive I know it. When I determine there is excessive contact to warrant a foul then it is excessive. When it comes to a judgement call it is pretty hard to establish it over the internet.

ChuckElias · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 04:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ
Chuck, my excessive blood is my excessive blood and your excessive blood is your excessive blood.

Nope. Your excessive blood is your excessive blood, and my excessive blood is the FED's excessive blood. :shrug:

DJ · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 04:48pm

No, Chuck the Feds have their excessive blood and anything involving judgement is up to the individual. Others are on an ego trip and are singular in their issues.

Jurassic Referee · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 04:55pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ
No, Chuck the Feds have their excessive blood and anything involving judgement is up to the individual. Others are on an ego trip and are singular in their issues.

Ego trip, DJ? I think that you may have this reversed.

Hate to have to tell you this, but Chuck is right. When the "blood rule" came in, the FED issued a guideline that is exactly what Chuck posted above. The FED issued those guidelines so that officials would know how to call these situations, and not have to use their own judgement.

DownTownTonyBrown · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 22, 2004, 05:32pm

The purpose of the rule is not to just have another rule to enforce. The purpose is to protect the players from blood born pathogens (hepatitus, HIV)- those pathogens are only a danger to others when they can be transferred.

Transferability should be your guide as you judge whether a uniform needs to be exchanged/removed.

Even transferability is conservative because not only does there need to be enough blood to transfer but there must also be an opening on the receiver (open wound, eye, mouth) for the blood, and it's pathogens, to be transfered into. And obviously (rather unrealistically) we assume all blood is contaminated with these pathogens.

This conservativism is because the consequences can be dire.

Transferability. Balance your desire to get that blood off of the court with the inherent conservatism, the potential consequence, and the ability of the team to comply with the rule (if clean jerseys are readily available, maybe you want to get rid of a spatter).

DJ · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 23, 2004, 09:44am

That is why I am cautious about how I handle blood on the uniform. This is a high school game we are talking about and I will use my judgement concerning the issue. Evidently others question their own judgement when it comes to applying the the rule book and want to get hung up with semantics. After 2000 varsity games, 18 state tournaments(4 state championship games) in basketball and two state championship games in football as the white hat I will not get hung up in semantics. Believe me, I know what the blood rule is and do not need to hide in the rule book when it comes to the blood rule. Some people are real boorish on this web site with their arrogance and I have seen the same thing at rules clinics when it comes to discussion concerning application of the the rules. They are not good listeners and do not repect the opinions of others. They are self serving in their agenda. I think that some visitors to this web site show a definite lack of respect for others and their opinions and because they have a big number by their name they think that they are "the keeper of the rule book." Their arrogance gets to be a distraction for others who are trying to enjoy the opportunities that this web site has to offer. Their opinions and I repeat opinions, are never to be doubted and if you don't believe it then just ask them. There is a lot more to officiating than the rule book. Chuck, believe me I know how to apply the blood rule to a real life situation because I have been there many times and I don't need the rule book to justify my judgement because it is well repected by the people I work for. I respect your opinion and ask that you respect mine.

Jurassic Referee · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 23, 2004, 10:42am

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ
That is why I am cautious about how I handle blood on the uniform. This is a high school game we are talking about and I will use my judgement concerning the issue. Evidently others question their own judgement when it comes to applying the the rule book and want to get hung up with semantics. After 2000 varsity games, 18 state tournaments(4 state championship games) in basketball and two state championship games in football as the white hat I will not get hung up in semantics. Believe me, I know what the blood rule is and do not need to hide in the rule book when it comes to the blood rule. Some people are real boorish on this web site with their arrogance and I have seen the same thing at rules clinics when it comes to discussion concerning application of the the rules. They are not good listeners and do not repect the opinions of others. They are self serving in their agenda. I think that some visitors to this web site show a definite lack of respect for others and their opinions and because they have a big number by their name they think that they are "the keeper of the rule book." Their arrogance gets to be a distraction for others who are trying to enjoy the opportunities that this web site has to offer. Their opinions and I repeat opinions, are never to be doubted and if you don't believe it then just ask them. There is a lot more to officiating than the rule book. Chuck, believe me I know how to apply the blood rule to a real life situation because I have been there many times and I don't need the rule book to justify my judgement because it is well repected by the people I work for. I respect your opinion and ask that you respect mine.

How can you respect the opinion of anyone that you think is "boorish", "arrogant", "not good listeners","does not respect the opinions of others",and "self-serving"? You really get off on name-calling, don't you,DJ?

Btw, maybe you can explain to me exactly why your opinion is correct, while someone else's opinion is wrong?

Also, why don't you quit big-timing us with your resume. Nobody cares, and it doesn't give you any more credibility than any brand new official posting here. It may surprise you, but there actually might be a lotta guys here who have done higher levels than you- but don't feel that they have to go around advertising that fact.

There. You got my opinion, whether you like it or not! Also, my last post to you on this. If you wanna continue flaming, feel free.

Dan_ref · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 23, 2004, 10:47am

Hey DJ, this aint semantics this is how the fed wants the blood rule managed. Nothing about your prior experience is going to change that. Chuck is right.

FWIW the ncaa takes this completely out of our hands, they want a bloodied uniform to be looked at by medical personel who will determine if the uniform is OK or needs to be replaced.

FWIW2 Chuck is the *last* person I think of when I think of arrogant people. Not sure I can say that about someone who lists his officiating resume to defend his position. (Notice I'm trying to keep this civil by not telling you to stop big-timing us.)

Edit - oops, I see JR used the dreaded "big-time" phrase already as I was pressing submit. Don't take my comment as a swipe at JR.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Jan 23rd, 2004 at 09:51 AM]