Jump to content

Why do we still have the blood rule?

daisycutter
daisycutter
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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. 

I always chuckle hearing/reading the AFL footy ground referred to as a "workplace". I know it is, but it just makes me think of Clarry Oliver or Nathan Jones rocking up to the centre square sighing a beleaguered sigh for another day's drudgery, dressed in a bad tie and sporting a briefcase. 

  • Quote
    •  
    24 minutes ago, Chook said:

    I always chuckle hearing/reading the AFL footy ground referred to as a "workplace". I know it is, but it just makes me think of Clarry Oliver or Nathan Jones rocking up to the centre square sighing a beleaguered sigh for another day's drudgery, dressed in a bad tie and sporting a briefcase. 

    Just before the bounce, Jones in the centre square 

    “Can’t do time on today fellas, have to knock off on time.” 

    Edited by Ethan Tremblay

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 minutes ago, Sadler said:

    Gee sorry, I usually keep a pad near the TV to write down all the unnecessary blood rules in a season ... 

    You made the assertion that there are "too many unnecessary blood rules" and that "the rule is clearly not being followed properly". You then challenged me to explain this.

    But now you're indignant and upset that I asked you for an example of this. 

    Are you upset because I try to find facts to base my arguments on?

  • Quote
    •  
    16 minutes ago, Sadler said:

    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.

    Actually, the article is interviewing Mike Sheahan where he says that he had possibly spoken to Larkins, who said that the risk of infection is small.

    Larkins was not quoted. Sheahan said that Larkins believed many are were unnecessary. In the context is likely that he means not that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but he doesn't believe that the risk of infection is high in those circumstances.

    I love evidence. It's my favourite way of backing up my arguments.

  • Quote
    2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    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. 

    A decent soldier never fears blood on the sword.

  • Quote

    Again...the blood rule was a kneejerk response at the time of the HIV pandamonium. 

    We now understand the risks and nature of transferring such a lot better. 

    Still in last century

  • Quote
    18 minutes ago, demonstone said:

    You could get infected if the wrong insect bit you ... a Hepatitis Bee for example.

    But of course the only benefit of being bitten by a hepatitis Bee is you can become a hepatitis Dee.

    Edited by IDee
    Typo

  • Quote
    •  
    6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

    Again...the blood rule was a kneejerk response at the time of the HIV pandamonium. 

    We now understand the risks and nature of transferring such a lot better. 

    Still in last century

    I would agree that there is a real problem with it for continuing to potentially stigmatise the population with HIV as being far more dangerous to others than is remotely the case (basically zero risk).

    Edited by IDee
    Clarity

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

    You made the assertion that there are "too many unnecessary blood rules" and that "the rule is clearly not being followed properly". You then challenged me to explain this.

    But now you're indignant and upset that I asked you for an example of this. 

    Are you upset because I try to find facts to base my arguments on?

     

    1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

    Actually, the article is interviewing Mike Sheahan where he says that he had possibly spoken to Larkins, who said that the risk of infection is small.

    Larkins was not quoted. Sheahan said that Larkins believed many are were unnecessary. In the context is likely that he means not that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but he doesn't believe that the risk of infection is high in those circumstances.

    I love evidence. It's my favourite way of backing up my arguments.

    Relax Spongebob, didn’t mean to hit a nerve. It’s perfectly alright to respond to information you’ve provided with more information. Since you’ve responded to me twice consecutively in the space of 10 minutes I can see that you’ve clearly got your Amani knickers in a twist..

    The OP has asked a question about the blood rule to start a discussion and you’ve just come into the thread all belligerent and added nothing of value to the discussion. Then you were aggressive towards someone and insulted their intelligence. Real bullying behaviour and it doesn’t fly with me and shouldn’t fly in here. You can raise facts but there’s plenty of less aggressive ways to get your point across. Otherwise you just come across as some smartarse dick that thinks they know everything. 

    1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

    Larkins was not quoted.

    Nice try Spongebob. 

    “The doc reckons far too many players are coming off when they don’t need to, and we saw it six days ago.

    Pretty much the point I’m making. If you don’t like the opinion of one of the most well known doctors in the sport because you like to be right!

    Sit back Spongebob, breathe, think of calm blue oceans. It’s ok to have your position challenged and you don’t have to be such an uptight geezer.

    Edited by Sadler

  • Quote

    51 minutes ago, Biffen said:

    A decent soldier never fears blood on the sword.

    I did my best work from a distance. 

    Edited by Ethan Tremblay

  • Quote
    16 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    I did my best work from a distance. 

    Just like Bette Midler.

  • Quote
    • Author
    22 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    I did my best work from a distance. 

    hmmmm....so you were a sniper?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 hour 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.

     

    You told me that the blood rule is clearly not being followed properly (which is that a player is sent off the field if there is ‘Active Bleeding’). I asked you to provide me with examples of instances where the rule was not being followed properly.

    You responded with this:

    1 hour ago, Sadler said:

    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/

    You got quite upset about being asked to provide examples and made some weird dig about me doing research.

    You provided an online article where retired journalist, Mike Sheahan, said that he had spoken to a doctor who thought there was a low chance of infection and, as a consequence, those players probably didn’t pose a risk. This was your evidence for the rule not being followed properly. However the rule is that the player must come off if there is ‘active bleeding’. The rules don’t state anything about the risk of infection, which makes sense because umpires are not medical professionals. As the rule is stated, you have provided no evidence that the rule is not being followed properly.

    The exact quotes in the article:

    “I spoke to doctor Peter Larkins last night, he said the risk of infection is miniscule. It was two things, hepatitis and HIV but this was introduced 20 years ago when there was almost hysteria about the possibility of being infected. The doc reckons far too many players are coming off when they don’t need to, and we saw it six days ago.”

     

    3 minutes ago, Sadler said:

     

    Relax Spongebob, didn’t mean to hit a nerve. It’s perfectly alright to respond to information you’ve provided with more information. Since you’ve responded to me twice consecutively in the space of 10 minutes I can see that you’ve clearly got your Amani knickers in a twist..

    The OP has asked a question about the blood rule to start a discussion and you’ve just come into the thread all belligerent and added nothing of value to the discussion. Then you were aggressive towards someone and insulted their intelligence. Real bullying behaviour and it doesn’t fly with me and shouldn’t fly in here. You can raise facts but there’s plenty of less aggressive ways to get your point across. Otherwise you just come across as some smartarse dick that thinks they know everything. 

    Nice try Spongebob. 

    “The doc reckons far too many players are coming off when they don’t need to, and we saw it six days ago.

    Pretty much the point I’m making. If you don’t like the opinion of one of the most well known doctors in the sport because you like to be right!

    Sit back Spongebob, breathe, think of calm blue oceans. It’s ok to have your position challenged and you don’t have to be such an uptight geezer.

    I have made no judgement on the opinion of Larkins, as he is not addressing the point that we were talking about. You spoke about the incorrect application of the blood rule (‘active bleeding’) and misinterpreted his comments. I’m not a medical professional so I will trust him when he says that the risk of infection is very low, which is a rational position to take.

    But he isn’t saying that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but rather that the rule itself should be altered to prevent players leaving the ground unnecessarily. That’s your mistake, not his.

    Also, I love having my position challenged. If I didn’t then I wouldn’t bother doing research to find out whether I’m correct or not. I love having arguments about things because it’s fun and interesting. I have added something though, since I looked up the actual rules to point out that the rule that people were upset about (‘shouldn’t be for nicks and grazes’) was actually not an issue since the rule itself stated this was not the case. If the OP interprets that as bullying then I apologise to the OP, and I thank you for heroically standing up to me on their behalf.

    *  Armani.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Author
    2 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

    You told me that the blood rule is clearly not being followed properly (which is that a player is sent off the field if there is ‘Active Bleeding’). I asked you to provide me with examples of instances where the rule was not being followed properly.

    You responded with this:

    You got quite upset about being asked to provide examples and made some weird dig about me doing research.

    You provided an online article where retired journalist, Mike Sheahan, said that he had spoken to a doctor who thought there was a low chance of infection and, as a consequence, those players probably didn’t pose a risk. This was your evidence for the rule not being followed properly. However the rule is that the player must come off if there is ‘active bleeding’. The rules don’t state anything about the risk of infection, which makes sense because umpires are not medical professionals. As the rule is stated, you have provided no evidence that the rule is not being followed properly.

    The exact quotes in the article:

    “I spoke to doctor Peter Larkins last night, he said the risk of infection is miniscule. It was two things, hepatitis and HIV but this was introduced 20 years ago when there was almost hysteria about the possibility of being infected. The doc reckons far too many players are coming off when they don’t need to, and we saw it six days ago.”

     

    I have made no judgement on the opinion of Larkins, as he is not addressing the point that we were talking about. You spoke about the incorrect application of the blood rule (‘active bleeding’) and misinterpreted his comments. I’m not a medical professional so I will trust him when he says that the risk of infection is very low, which is a rational position to take.

    But he isn’t saying that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but rather that the rule itself should be altered to prevent players leaving the ground unnecessarily. That’s your mistake, not his.

    Also, I love having my position challenged. If I didn’t then I wouldn’t bother doing research to find out whether I’m correct or not. I love having arguments about things because it’s fun and interesting. I have added something though, since I looked up the actual rules to point out that the rule that people were upset about (‘shouldn’t be for nicks and grazes’) was actually not an issue since the rule itself stated this was not the case. If the OP interprets that as bullying then I apologise to the OP, and I thank you for heroically standing up to me on their behalf.

    *  Armani.

    sheesh, bob, no need to be such a pedant

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    • Author
    4 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

    What can I say ... I do my research!

    good, so we don't need an afl rule at the whim of the umpires who have enough to handle without playing doctors

    let the club trainers/doctors handle it (as they used to) either on field or where deemed necessary off the field 

    we don't want key players forced off at critical times during a game (e.g. big max) when not necessary

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

    You told me that the blood rule is clearly not being followed properly (which is that a player is sent off the field if there is ‘Active Bleeding’). I asked you to provide me with examples of instances where the rule was not being followed properly.

    You responded with this:

    You got quite upset about being asked to provide examples and made some weird dig about me doing research.

    You provided an online article where retired journalist, Mike Sheahan, said that he had spoken to a doctor who thought there was a low chance of infection and, as a consequence, those players probably didn’t pose a risk. This was your evidence for the rule not being followed properly. However the rule is that the player must come off if there is ‘active bleeding’. The rules don’t state anything about the risk of infection, which makes sense because umpires are not medical professionals. As the rule is stated, you have provided no evidence that the rule is not being followed properly.

    The exact quotes in the article:

    “I spoke to doctor Peter Larkins last night, he said the risk of infection is miniscule. It was two things, hepatitis and HIV but this was introduced 20 years ago when there was almost hysteria about the possibility of being infected. The doc reckons far too many players are coming off when they don’t need to, and we saw it six days ago.”

     

    I have made no judgement on the opinion of Larkins, as he is not addressing the point that we were talking about. You spoke about the incorrect application of the blood rule (‘active bleeding’) and misinterpreted his comments. I’m not a medical professional so I will trust him when he says that the risk of infection is very low, which is a rational position to take.

    But he isn’t saying that the rule is being applied incorrectly, but rather that the rule itself should be altered to prevent players leaving the ground unnecessarily. That’s your mistake, not his.

    Also, I love having my position challenged. If I didn’t then I wouldn’t bother doing research to find out whether I’m correct or not. I love having arguments about things because it’s fun and interesting. I have added something though, since I looked up the actual rules to point out that the rule that people were upset about (‘shouldn’t be for nicks and grazes’) was actually not an issue since the rule itself stated this was not the case. If the OP interprets that as bullying then I apologise to the OP, and I thank you for heroically standing up to me on their behalf.

    *  Armani.

     :)

    C9C9D871-C727-4228-99B9-82BE23C334E8.jpeg

    Edited by Sadler
    Spongebob didn’t like the double quoting

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    13 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    good, so we don't need an afl rule at the whim of the umpires who have enough to handle without playing doctors

    let the club trainers/doctors handle it (as they used to) either on field or where deemed necessary off the field 

    we don't want key players forced off at critical times during a game (e.g. big max) when not necessary

    I don't have a problem with the rule. In fact, I'm completely indifferent to it. Change it or not, it won't worry me at all.

    It's also less of an issue now because there are so many rotations, so players will go of more often. When the rule was made there were about 5 interchanges a quarter, so players didn't want to go off and they couldn't get the wound fixed. Now they'll be off within 10 minutes. But I still don't have a problem with the current rule, certainly not enough to worry about it in any way.

  • Quote
    24 minutes ago, Sadler said:

     

     :)

    C9C9D871-C727-4228-99B9-82BE23C334E8.jpeg

    Whoosh.

    * Don't block quote an entire post of it's long. It's poor internet form. Certainly don't do it twice in the same post. Think of the paper.

  • Quote

    25 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

    Whoosh.

    * Don't block quote an entire post of it's long. It's poor internet form. Certainly don't do it twice in the same post. Think of the paper.

    Wow you don’t even need winding you just keep going! You really need to quit while you’re behind Spongebob you’re just embarrassing yourself now. 

    *if it’s long

    Edited by Sadler

  • Quote
    11 minutes ago, Sadler said:

    Wow you don’t even need winding you just keep going! You really need to quit while you’re behind Spongebob you’re just embarrassing yourself now. 

    *if it’s long

    That penny fell for a long time before hitting the bottom.

  • Quote
    2 hours ago, demonstone said:

    You could get infected if the wrong insect bit you ... a Hepatitis Bee for example.

    Or being stung when riding a marine creature ! dmstn....  a Hep Sea 'orse.

    .

     

  • Quote
    •  
    1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

    That penny fell for a long time before hitting the bottom.

    If you’re gonna accuse someone for bad spelling and grammar. You’d bloody well want to get your own spelling and grammar right!

  • Quote
    24 minutes ago, Sadler said:

    If you’re going to accuse someone of bad spelling and grammar, you’d bloody well want to get your own spelling and grammar right!

    Ok, maybe that penny is still up there.

     

    Edited by Axis of Bob
    Grammar.

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 10

      The Sir Doug Nicholls Round kicks off in Darwin with a Top 4 clash between the Suns and the Hawks. On Friday night the Swans will be seeking to rebound from a challenging start to the season, while the Blues have the Top 8 in their sights after their sluggish start. Saturdays matches kick off with a blockbuster between the Collingwood and Kuwarna with the Magpies looking to maintain their strong form and the Crows aiming to make a statement on the road. The Power face a difficult task to revive their season against a resilient Cats side looking to make amends for their narrow loss last week. The Giants aim to reinforce their top-eight status, while the Dockers will be looking to break the travel hoodoo. The sole Saturday game is a critical matchup for both teams, as the Bulldogs strive to cemet their spot in the top six and the Bombers desperately want break into the 8. Sundays start with a bottom 3 clash between the Tigers and Kangaroos with both teams wanting to avoid the being in wooden spoon contention. The Round concludes with the Eagles still searching for their first win of the season, while the Saints look to keep their finals hopes alive with a crucial away victory. Who are you tipping and what are the best results for the Demons?

        • Thanks
      • 89 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Brisbane

      And just like that, we’re Narrm again. Even though the annual AFL Sir Doug Nicholls Round which commemorates the contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture to our game has been a welcome addition to our calendar for ten years, more lately it has been a portent of tough times ahead for we beleaguered Narrm supporters. Ever since the club broke through for its historic 2021 premiership, this has become a troubling time of the year for the club. For example, it all began when Melbourne rebranded itself as Narrm across the two rounds of the Sir Doug Nicholls Round to become the first club to adopt an Indigenous club name especially for the occasion. It won its first outing under the brand against lowly North Melbourne to go to 10 wins and no losses but not without a struggle or a major injury to  star winger Ed Langdon who broke his ribs and missed several weeks. In the following week, still as Narrm, the team’s 17 game winning streak came to an end at the hands of the Dockers. That came along with more injuries, a plague that remained with them for the remainder of the season until, beset by injuries, the Dees were eliminated from the finals in straight sets. It was even worse last year, when Narrm inexplicably lowered its colours in Perth to the Waalit Marawar Eagles. Oh, the shame of it all! At least this year, if there is a corner to turn around, it has to be in the direction of something better. To that end, I produced a special pre-game chant in the local Narrm language - “nam mi:wi winnamun katjil prolin ambi ngamar thamelin amb” which roughly translated is “every heart beats true for the red and the blue.” >y belief is that if all of the Narrm faithful recite it long enough, then it might prove to be the only way to beat the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba on Sunday. The Lions are coming off a disappointing draw at Marvel Stadium against a North Melbourne team that lacks the ability and know how to win games (except when playing Melbourne). Brisbane are, however, a different kettle of fish at home and have very few positional weaknesses. They are a midfield powerhouse, strong in defence and have plenty of forward options, particularly their small and medium sized players, to kick a winning score this week after the sting of last week’s below par performance.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 11 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Hawthorn

      There was a time during the current Melbourne cycle that goes back to before the premiership when the club was the toughest to beat in the fourth quarter. The Demons were not only hard to beat at any time but it was virtually impossible to get the better them when scores were close at three quarter time. It was only three or four years ago but they were fit, strong and resilient in body and mind. Sadly, those days are over. This has been the case since the club fell off its pedestal about 12 months ago after it beat Geelong and then lost to Carlton. In both instances, Melbourne put together strong, stirring final quarters, one that resulted in victory, the other, in defeat. Since then, the drop off has been dramatic to the point where it can neither pull off victory in close matches, nor can it even go down in defeat  gallantly.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Footscray

      At twenty-four minutes into the third term of the game between the Casey Demons and Footscray VFL at Whitten Oval, the visitors were coasting. They were winning all over the ground, had the ascendancy in the ruck battles and held a 26 point lead on a day perfect for football. What could go wrong? Everything. The Bulldogs moved into overdrive in the last five minutes of the term and booted three straight goals to reduce the margin to a highly retrievable eight points at the last break. Bouyed by that effort, their confidence was on a high level during the interval and they ran all over the despondent Demons and kicked another five goals to lead by a comfortable margin of four goals deep into the final term before Paddy Cross kicked a couple of too late goals for a despondent Casey. A testament to their lack of pressure in the latter stages of the game was the fact that Footscray’s last ten scoring shots were nine goals and one rushed behind. Things might have been different for the Demons who went into the game after last week’s bye with 12 AFL listed players. Blake Howes was held over for the AFL game but two others, Jack Billings and Taj Woewodin (not officially listed as injured) were also missing and they could have been handy at the end. Another mystery of the current VFL system.

        • Thanks
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Brisbane

      The Demons head back out on the road in Round 10 when they travel to Queensland to take on the reigning Premiers and the top of the table Lions who look very formidable. Can the Dees cause a massive upset? Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 278 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Hawthorn

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Demons loss to the Hawks. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 53 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All