Blood Rule Situation

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

But that's not what Camron said. NO ONE is saying that transferrable blood was allowable under the old rule. What Camron and I are saying is that some blood was allowable, as long as it was not transferrable.

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.

What?!?! "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."

The change/clarification (as described above) is saying exactly the opposite of what you just said, JR. You are allowed NO blood whatsoever, regardless of whether the official deems it transferrable or not.

I'm not sure why, but I really think that you've got this whole debate backwards, JR. The old rule allowed blood that was not transferrable; the new rule allows no blood at all.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

What?!?! "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."

The change/clarification (as described above) is saying exactly the opposite of what you just said, JR. You are allowed NO blood whatsoever, regardless of whether the official deems it transferrable or not.

I'm not sure why, but I really think that you've got this whole debate backwards, JR. The old rule allowed blood that was not transferrable; the new rule allows no blood at all.

Again, Chuck, there is NO new rule. There is a clarification of the old rule.

I still disagree. The rule allowing dried or treated blood spots hasn't changed. Imo all the FED did was state that any amount of transferable blood on a uni is now verboten. They just took out the judgement part of whether a shirt was saturated or not.

Guess we're gonna haveta wait until we get a further clarification on this one.

[Camron Rust]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.