Blood on Uniform

[Corndog89]

I suspect this has been dicussed in the past, but I have to ask, so...

At our association meeting tonight we took part 2 of the NFHS test. Two blood-related questions:

#73: "If the officials stop play for a bleeding player, the player may remain in the game if his/her team is charged with a time-out and the bleeding situation is remedied.
#83: "A player who has blood on the uniform must leave the game".

I answered True on both based on 3.3.6: "A player who is bleeding, has an open wound, has any amount of blood on his/her uniform, or has blood on his/her person, shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected, unless a time-out is requested by, and granted to, his/her team and the situation can be corrected by the end of the time-out."

The interpreter said that each was False. On #73, he said that if the official stops play for bleeding, then no time-out is to be granted and the player has to sit out until the first dead ball. I said that if his/her team is granted a time-out and the situation is rectified by the end of the time-out, per 3.3.6, then the player can remain in the game. With no discussion he dictated that "since the official stopped play, the player had to sit...next question."

Similarly, on #83 he said that the uniform must have significant amounts of blood to stop play. However, "...has any amount of blood on his/her uniform..." doesn't say there has to be a significant amount or saturation with blood. Doesn't "any amount" means just that...that even a pin-prick of blood is an amount?

The Case Book has three situations for 3.3.6 but none of them say that there has to be excessive or significant amounts of blood.

Similarly, the Communicable Disease and Skin Infection Procedures on page 6 of the Rules Book say "Bleeding must be stopped immediately and all wounds covered. All blood-soaked clothing must be removed before continuing competition or practice. Contaminated clothing must be cleaned before using again." But the wording in the actual rules does not say blood-soaked; instead the rules say "any amount".

Having said all this, where do you stand on the blood question? Based on 3.3.6, I'm removing any player with any amount of blood on his/her uniform/body. As far as I'm concerned this is a safety question and there's no room for my opinion on how soaked or dangerous the situation may be...seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Please, I'm looking for thoughts, ideas, positions, experiences, etc on this question to help me better understand my role. Thanks in advance...

[Snake~eyes]

Get a new interpreter. Both questions should be true. JMO.

[Nevadaref]

I don't have the Part 2 answer key, but your interpreter is wrong on both.

For the open wound or cut on the player's body rule 3-3-6 clearly states that the player may remain in the game if the team takes a time-out and remedies the situation prior to the end of that interval.

Also the NFHS clarified the blood on the uniform issue this past year.

2006-07 Major Editorial Revisions
3-3-6 Clarified that a player who has any amount of of blood on his/her uniform shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected.

This replaced the old language that said the amount of blood on the uniform had to be "excessive."

[Corndog89]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Also the NFHS clarified the blood on the uniform issue this past year.

2006-07 Major Editorial Revisions
3-3-6 Clarified that a player who has any amount of of blood on his/her uniform shall be directed to leave the game until the situation is corrected.

This replaced the old language that said the amount of blood on the uniform had to be "excessive."

Nevada...Thanks. I glanced through my 06-07 rules book last night but didn't find this, though I had thought it was there. I appreciate you providing it.

And yes, Snake-Eyes, this "interpreter" is not good. There were a couple other questions where he didn't read them carefully and gave wrong answers and when someone brought this to his attention he refused to even listen. If nothing else it made me think each question through and research more thoroughly...it's the new (and old) guys I worry about who'll just go along with whatever he says.

[armymanjones]

Unfortunately just because someone is delegated to be an interpreter doesn't mean they take the job seriously. Same things happen with some senior guys who don't stay up on their rules. I have been officiating varsity ball for quiet a few years and find myself reading the rule books constantly during the season. Not only to get a handle on the rule changes but also to stay refreshed on all the rules. Sounds like the interperter wanted to get through the test review without recognizing a mistake. Both question should have been answered true per 3-3-6.

[truerookie]

Both are true. I stay in the rulebook on a year round basis. Everytime, I continue to discover something new plus coming onto the forum almost daily has helped also.