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.

Back to the original question
 

If I was there, I would allow the coach to change jerseys without any administrative technical fouls.

The spirit is to keep players safe from illness that could be transferred from the blood. Since there was only 1:15 left and either team had a chance to win, I would allow a broad range of choices including letting subs jearseys be worn providing that they did not return the rest of the game.

I hope so since the rules allow a player to change jerseys in such a situation without penalty. :)

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.

It did allow non-transferable blood, however. The new rule allows none...transferable or not.

It doesn't matter what they call it...they materially changed the meaning of the rule. That is not a clarification.
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.

"any" is not the same as "some".

That is the way I understood it (the old rule) too, but the new wording doesn't agree with that.

Sure but not into a substitutes uniform. It would have to be to a backup jersey withthe same number.

Not true.

There's no requirement that the jersey be the same number. That's why the rule allows the number to be changed in the score book without penalty.

3.2.2 SITUATION E:
Team A properly submits its team member list and designates the five starters as required at least 10 minutes before the scheduled start of the game. Anytime thereafter, either before the game starts or during the game, the coach asks the scorer to change a number in the scorebook: (a) so it corresponds to what the team member is wearing; (b) because a player's shirt has excessive blood on it; or (c) because a player's shirt is torn.

RULING: In (a), a technical foul is charged to Team A. In (b) and (c), the shirt is changed and the number change made in the scorebook without any penalty.

That's a lot of heat to generate from a troll! This guy is good!

My mistake, but do you agree it can't be a substitutes jersey especially if the player has been into the game at some point .

No, I don't. I don't see any reason why the coach couldn't use a sub's jersey. He would have to remove the sub from any further possible participation. That's his choice, not mine. We should do what we can to let the kid play, without throwing up road blocks.

Well thats one we will have to disagree on then. I would not allow a player to use a subs jersey if the sub has already been in the game. I actually have a hard time allowing a player to change to another number but can see it would be alright as long as all the soresheet info went with him.

I suppose by that thinking then the sub would no longer be allowed to participate further in the game and the original player would have to have all his fouls and such transfered along withthe new number. OK, I am starting to convince myself, but with some hesitation.

Smoke

Why? What rule prevents this?

Why? Especially when this is specifically allowed by rule, as Tony has already pointed out to you.

Sure it can. Read case play 3.3.6 Situation A.

Z

3.3.6 SITUATION A:
B1 is directed to leave the game because of excessive blood on his/her uniform shirt. Team B's manager has failed to pack any extra shirts. (a) The coach asks one of the substitutes to give his/her shirt to B1; or (b) Team A is able to find a shirt which B1 can wear even though it is not exactly the same color or style of the Team B shirts. The shirt will however, clearly identify B1 as a member of Team B and will not be confusing to either team or the officials.

RULING: Acceptable procedure in both (a) and (b). In both situations the scorer will make necessary changes in the scorebook without penalty.

COMMENT: The spirit and intent of the rule is to do everything possible to allow the player to use a different shirt and return without penalty. However, identical numbers shall not be allowed on the same team.

You all never completely read my post. I had convinced myself as I was typing and reading what Tony said. Yes I originally disagree withthe concept of allowing a sub to hand over their uniform. I know its legal in NF rules but have not been able to specifically find reference in NCAA or FIBA. DOn't necessarily have to agree with it but I DO UNDERSTAND what you say.

Please don't jump all over someone's Opinion just because its different from yours.

I never meant that. I said the player who is getting the new jersey would have all of their scoresheet information (fouls, etc) transfered to the new number as well.

Just erase the number by the player's name and write in the new number. Nothing really transfers, the number just changes.

No one is jumping on your opinion, we're just trying to help you understand that it's legal. In this case, we're provided documentation. As for NCAA, if it doesn't say it's illegal, them it's legal. As for FEEBLE, who cares? :)