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. 

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 August 21, 20186 yr by Ethan Tremblay

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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 August 21, 20186 yr by IDee
Typo

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 August 21, 20186 yr by IDee
Clarity

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 August 21, 20186 yr by Sadler

51 minutes ago, Biffen said:

A decent soldier never fears blood on the sword.

I did my best work from a distance. 

Edited August 21, 20186 yr by Ethan Tremblay

16 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I did my best work from a distance. 

Just like Bette Midler.

22 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I did my best work from a distance. 

hmmmm....so you were a sniper?

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.

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

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

sheesh, bob, no need to be such a pedant

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

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

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.

 

Edited August 21, 20186 yr by Sadler
Spongebob didn’t like the double quoting

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.

24 minutes ago, Sadler 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.

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 August 21, 20186 yr by Sadler

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.

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.

.

 

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!

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 August 21, 20186 yr by Axis of Bob
Grammar.