Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Hawthorn



daisycutter

Why do we still have the blood rule?

Recommended Posts

Are we the only sport in oz that (still) has a blood rule?

The NRL and ARU has far more claret than us but no blood rule

Why does someone have to go off the ground for just a minor trickle of blood that could be rubbed off with a towel on the ground 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question!  It's a time-wasting nonsense!  Without it, we probably woulda had big Max standing in our backline to stop Tuoy from marking on the siren in the Geelong game a few weeks back!!  Cost us the game!

  • Love 1
  • Sad 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so many of us bleeding red and blue, I agree it should be scrapped

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be some health related reasons, but above that, in the AFLs point of view, would be the look of the game.

They're not wanting parents to see players covered in blood running around after other players covered in blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can understand the rule, don’t understand why we have to wait for the player to get off the ground before the new player comes on. If they simultaneously had the player going off and new player coming on it would save 50% of the current time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biffen said:

Rabies.

Only if one contacts blood from a WCE or Collingwood fan. 

But on a serious note, I did hear recently some infectious diseases specialist saying something along the lines of the risk of catching a BBD in this context being infinitesimal.  

Maybe Gill could ask Waleed Aly his expert opinion?

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the Blood Rule brought in during that Grin Reaper era ? 

We can probably move on now.

Good question DC 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vagg said:

Good question!  It's a time-wasting nonsense!  Without it, we probably woulda had big Max standing in our backline to stop Tuoy from marking on the siren in the Geelong game a few weeks back!!  Cost us the game!

Waste of F time and money (WOFTAM). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Wasn't the Blood Rule brought in during that Grin Reaper era ? 

We can probably move on now.

Good question DC 

Would you let your son out on the AFL footy field with a Carlton or Collingwood bloodied nose? Still risky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Call me weird but I wouldn’t be happy with having someone else’s blood on me while I’m in the workplace, or any other place for that matter. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far more look of the game than functional these days, but I don't really hate it. We have an interchange, players should go get cleaned up. That said, let them wipe with a towel first, if it clears then start the game, they'll go off eventually.

The question should be why don't we have a concussion rule? It's silly seeing players clearly groggy take kicks for goal then jogging off or getting up, pushing off trainers and contesting for the ball. Just stop play and get them off the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Only if one contacts blood from a WCE or Collingwood fan. 

But on a serious note, I did hear recently some infectious diseases specialist saying something along the lines of the risk of catching a BBD in this context being infinitesimal.  

Maybe Gill could ask Waleed Aly his expert opinion?

You forgot Methodon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People find weird things to get upset about. I suppose we can add to the list ‘Players getting medically treated because they are openly bleeding on the field.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blood rule should only be enforced for free flowing and obvious bleeding. Not grazes or nicks. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DubDee said:

With so many of us bleeding red and blue, I agree it should be scrapped

Thats why we're outside the fence line, DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, layzie said:

The blood rule should only be enforced for free flowing and obvious bleeding. Not grazes or nicks. 

Absolutely!  Couldn't agree more!  Very sensible comment, Layzie!  Just use a little common sense!  (Oops!  It's the AFL!  Scrap that!  LOL)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, layzie said:

The blood rule should only be enforced for free flowing and obvious bleeding. Not grazes or nicks. 

You don't know the rule then.

This IS the rule!!

Play is only stopped for a player when there is "Active Bleeding". If you look it up it's Rule 22.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

You don't know the rule then.

This IS the rule!!

Play is only stopped for a player when there is "Active Bleeding". If you look it up it's Rule 22.

Was actually about to say that and paste it here but thanks for doing my job for me! Good work!

Edited by layzie
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

Are we the only sport in oz that (still) has a blood rule?

The NRL and ARU has far more claret than us but no blood rule

Why does someone have to go off the ground for just a minor trickle of blood that could be rubbed off with a towel on the ground 

As has been said the rule is only for free flowing blood.

In the NRL they have caped interchanges much more limited to AFL and in the Union once you're off you can't come back on. I know in lower grades they have a blood rule that allows someone to come back on with 10 mins if they are bleeding, haven't paid as much attention higher up to see if that's also the case. So it's there for all, just handled differently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

You don't know the rule then.

This IS the rule!!

Play is only stopped for a player when there is "Active Bleeding". If you look it up it's Rule 22.

Nice work. Reckon you can explain why there's been so many unnecessary blood rules this year though? Because that rule is clearly not being followed properly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sadler said:

Nice work. Reckon you can explain why there's been so many unnecessary blood rules this year though? Because that rule is clearly not being followed properly.

 

Which have been the unnecessary blood rules this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The risk is definitely small, probably not quantifiable, but also not zero.

The risk of HIV transmission would also fall for players on treatment (extrapolating from other groups). Hepatitis B and C are actually more transmissible but the majority of afl players would be low risk for these two being generally born in Australia and not injecting drug users.

I would say the risk of catching a BBV playing footy is almost certainly less than something worse happening to you like a severe spinal injury. But the difference is however small, this risk can be reduced by removing the player briefly, so even though the NNI (number needed to interchange) would be very very high, it’s probably worth doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Which have been the unnecessary blood rules this year?

Gee sorry, I usually keep a pad near the TV to write down all the unnecessary blood rules in a season and other totally relevant info like what colour shoe laces players are wearing etc. Guess I forgot this time.

I know you like looking things up though so this is an article from last month with Peter Larkins saying there are too many unnecessary blood rules.

https://www.zerohanger.com/blood-rule-obsolete-believes-sheahan-22236/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×