Blood Rule Situation
 

1:15 to play National Championship 82-82. Team wearing crimson indicates that 3 players on the white team has blood on their jerseys. Is it correct: this team has a 1 minute timeout to rectify and then the subs must enter and decide the National Championship or any other game? What if the subs have all fouled out? (5 on 2 for the title?) Take the subs jerseys? What if the sub has NOT fouled out but the coach wants his jersey on another better player? Team wearing white complains that this situation is unfair as blood is present but, not easily detected on the opponents red jerseys! Delay the game and inspect the red jerseys? Do you want to be on ESPN as the official that required the white jersey team to finish 2 against 5 for the championship?

Obviously it would depend on the amount of blood that is present. By rule the uniform must be saturated to require the player to leave the game and change the affected part of the uniform (I mean the top or shorts). I interpret the term saturated to mean the blood would be transferable to another player. Just because a uniform has had blood on it and it has been clean but remains stained does not in itself become a biohazard. Quantity is a big part for me to make the determination and I would also have to confirm this with medical personal if they are available.

JMO, I may be wrong, but I doubt it. - Charles Barkley

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, the scenario is ridiculous. Your time would be better spent considering situations that are more likely to occur.

Third, officals don't do things simply because a team complains. Further, just having blood on the uniform is not enough to force the player to change jerseys. The jersey would have to be transferable. Teams carry extra jerseys for just such a situation, so your scenario is not likely to occur.

Finally, you do everything within your power to insure that the game ends with each team having a fair chance to win, without regard to how much anyone complains.

2006-07 NFHS "Blood Rule" Clarification
 

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.

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.

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 <b>NO</b> amount of blood was legal if there was a possibility that the blood could be transferred to another person. Iow, players were <b>never</b> 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?

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.

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 <b>anywhere</b> on a player if there was any possibility that the blood could get on another player.

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.

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.

And I never said anything that contradicted that. :confused: 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.

Nope, Camron did <b>not</b> say that . I did. Camron said <i>"The former rule allowed <b>some</b> amount of blood on the shirt. The new rule allows <b>none.</b></i> That's an incorrect and misleading statement imo. First off, it is <b>not</b> a new rule; it's the old rule clarified. And the old rule did <b>not</b> 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 <b>some</b> 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.

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.

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 <b>NO</b> 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 <b>any</b> amount of transferable blood on a uni is now <i>verboten</i>. 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.

I couldn't care less if it's a rule change or an interpretation change or whatever. It's a change, as you yourself admit (it takes out the judgment).

That's ok. You're allowed to be wrong twice a decade. I won't hold it against you. ;)

See new case book submissions, Chuckster.