Blood Rule Situation

[uscuba2]

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?

[SmokeEater]

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by uscuba2

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?

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.

[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?