Is it time to revisit this AFL rule? I just watched the last quarter of that epic 2012 Hawthorn/Geelong match where Hawkins wins the game after the siren. With less than two minutes to go Sam Mitchell was sent off with a trickle of blood running from his nose after a collision with Selwood. I'm not saying that it cost Hawthorn the match, although it's possible, but my gut instinct is that this rule is an overreaction and that the chance of HIV, or other infectious diseases, is extremely minimal.

It's probably not a topic of interest to many, but does the rule need tweaking ?

Is it time to revisit this AFL rule? I just watched the last quarter of that epic 2012 Hawthorn/Geelong match where Hawkins wins the game after the siren. With less than two minutes to go Sam Mitchell was sent off with a trickle of blood running from his nose after a collision with Selwood. I'm not saying that it cost Hawthorn the match, although it's possible, but my gut instinct is that this rule is an overreaction and that the chance of HIV, or other infectious diseases, is extremely minimal.

It's probably not a topic of interest to many, but does the rule need tweaking ?

The rule was introduced because it was recommended on medical advice and therefore I think you would need medical evidence rather than "gut feel" to substantiate a change.

And if such evidence existed, how would you tweak it?

I think it is one of the few modern AFL rules that can actually be justified.

The amount of blood does not represent the seriousness of the injury - where do you draw the line (is a little bit of blood coming from the head okay?....but then a moderate amount of blood from a nose/leg is not?)

Is the umpire going to have to carry a flask to measure the amount of bleeding - it's to hard to draw a line!

I think you would need medical evidence rather than "gut feel" to substantiate a change.

Never stopped Dimmwit and minions before.

The rule was introduced because it was recommended on medical advice and therefore I think you would need medical evidence rather than "gut feel" to substantiate a change.

And if such evidence existed, how would you tweak it?

Medical advice in the face of law suits, or fear ?

How many sportspeople around the world have contracted any infectious disease from incidental contact ? I don't know the answer, but we lived with blood streaming from wounds for decades seemingly without any problems. Or were there ?

I agree that it's difficult to arbitrate, but something seems amiss to me.

Medical advice in the face of law suits, or fear ?

How many sportspeople around the world have contracted any infectious disease from incidental contact ? I don't know the answer, but we lived with blood streaming from wounds for decades seemingly without any problems. Or were there ?

I agree that it's difficult to arbitrate, but something seems amiss to me.

Medical advice in the face of law suits, or fear ?

How many sportspeople around the world have contracted any infectious disease from incidental contact ? I don't know the answer, but we lived with blood streaming from wounds for decades seemingly without any problems. Or were there ?

I agree that it's difficult to arbitrate, but something seems amiss to me.

I get where your coming from but I really think that it is too hard to draw the line and the rule is made with the player at interest. I think if a player is bumped heavily on the head but is only bleeding a little, is he in a state to make a decision on whether to keep playing? With all this debate about brain damage etc I just can't see it happening.

I agree. The blood rule is a huge over-reaction in many cases and the Mitchell one was a classic example. It should remain at the discretion of the ump, just like it does in most contact sports (UFC aside) to pull a player from the field when such an injury becomes unsightly.

Remember last year when Howe was reported for wiping blood on the Port players shorts? Another over-reaction but an unsightly and unnecessary act within the game which was highlighted for the purpose of eliminating it from happening in the future.

Maybe a warning to the player then a two minute window to have it treated or interchanged - which will be too bad if the rotation cap is in place. This would also allow the coaching group to plan and mitigate the loss of the player.

I think that if the rule exists, players should be penalised for not going off when they obviously should (like blood streaming from the forehead).

I think the NRL have a more relaxed blood rule than the AFL, but i'm not sure on the details

One might ask why the difference. Do Sydney medicos know more/less than Melbourne medicos?

The risk is very small, especially for HIV, more so for Hepatitis: but the consequences are high.

Largely I suspect an AFL financial risk management policy though.

And Mitchell did have a fair bit of blood on his face: more farcical are the little scratches on the shin.

And don't forget the game stops during the replacement of the bloodied payer. Given teams rotate players 130-140 times per match, one more rotation - with the game stopped while it happens - is perhaps not a big issue.

Come on Ben-Hur you know exactly why the blood rule is in.

No mum likes to see a player covered in blood on the field, they dont want their sons looking like that.

Sure there is infection risk but the number 1 reason is image of the game and therefore it won't be changed.