The Official Forum  

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 11:43am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 01:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 03:54pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
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?

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:23pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 04:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
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.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 04:20pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 04:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2006, 06:01pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blood Rule in OBR harmbu Baseball 8 Sun Apr 30, 2006 02:16am
Blood Situation BSHAUNJEN Basketball 3 Sat Mar 13, 2004 09:06am
Blood Rule nybarefs Basketball 16 Fri Jan 23, 2004 01:01pm
New blood rule jamie_kent Basketball 17 Mon Oct 14, 2002 01:05pm
blood rule Dibbs Basketball 2 Tue Nov 06, 2001 09:22am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1