Blood Rule Situation

[BillyMac]

Gentlemen:

Just a point of fact for your information. 2006-07 NFHS Rule Clarification seems to have removed wording regarding the uniform being saturated with blood. This is just a NSHS rule, not FIBA, NCAA, NBA, etc. I just deal with NFHS.

3-3-6: Clarified that a player who has any amount of blood on his/her uniform shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Gentlemen:

Just a point of fact for your information. 2006-07 NFHS Rule Clarification seems to have removed wording regarding the uniform being saturated with blood. This is just a NSHS rule, not FIBA, NCAA, NBA, etc. I just deal with NFHS.

3-3-6: Clarified that a player who has any amount of blood on his/her uniform shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected.

It's a clarification, not a rules change. They've just changed the wording from "saturated" to "any amount"; the general rule is still exactly the same. They did that, I think, to take any guess-work out of the call. The call really hasn't changed in any way at all, I don't think. If you see blood on a shirt and that blood could be transferrable, the shirt has to go buh-bye, same as before.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's a clarification, not a rules change. They've just changed the wording from "saturated" to "any amount"; the general rule is still exactly the same. They did that, I think, to take any guess-work out of the call. The call really hasn't changed in any way at all, I don't think. If you see blood on a shirt and that blood could be transferrable, the shirt has to go buh-bye, same as before.

Call it a clarification if you want but it is a change The former rule allowed some amount of blood to remain on the shirt. The new rule allows none.

The recent rules committees have a knack for changing rules and calling them clarifications.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Call it a clarification if you want but it is a change The former rule allowed some amount of blood to remain on the shirt. The new rule allows none.

I disagree completely with your statement above. There's no distinction in R4-3-6 as to where the blood is. Iirc, the purpose and intent of the original rule when it was implemented was that absolutely NO amount of blood was legal if there was a possibility that the blood could be transferred to another person. Iow, players were never allowed to have any blood on them if that blood could posssibly get on someone else.

It's also my understanding that this year's administrative, or editorial, change was made exactly because of officials misunderstanding the intent of the rule- as in your statement above.

Did you really allow players to remain in a game if they only had a small amount of blood on a cut, even if that small amount was sufficient to be transferred easily to another player?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you really allow players to remain in a game if they only had a small amount of blood on a cut?

Apples and oranges, JR. Camron is absolutely correct in his interpretation of blood on a shirt, and you are absolutely correct in your interpretation of blood from open wound.

Two small spots of blood on a jersey were perfectly legal, according to the old rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Two small spots of blood on a jersey were perfectly legal, according to the old rule.

I disagree completely with that too. Can you supply a rules reference to back that up, Chuck?

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?

Again, that certainly is not and never was my understanding of the purpose and intent of the rule. 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.

[ChuckElias]

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.

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.

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.