Just now, Axis of Bob said:

Ok, maybe that penny is still up there.

 

Think we’ll leave it at that Spongebob. You’re clearly very wound up and emotional over this subject and we don’t want anything happening to you. I’m onto you though.

14 minutes ago, Sadler said:

I’m onto you though.

Do I have to do anything?

OK Grimey, old buddy.

Wow!  If this topic keeps going on the present path, it could lead to punches being thrown and, perish the thought, blood being spilt.  Then, one or both would have to be sent off with the blood rule...!  (LOL)

3 hours 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.

He literally referred to the actual rule to back up his argument that the rule is precisely what some on here were asking for.

In response, you made a broad-brushed assertion that it was being over-policed and when asked to provide examples, you cited an article in which Mike Sheahan (a journalist) loosely referred to a conversation he'd had with Dr Larkins, without any quotes from Dr Larkins himself.

You may as well have said you'd had a chat with the doctor yourself.

3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

He literally referred to the actual rule to back up his argument that the rule is precisely what some on here were asking for.

In response, you made a broad-brushed assertion that it was being over-policed and when asked to provide examples, you cited an article in which Mike Sheahan (a journalist) loosely referred to a conversation he'd had with Dr Larkins, without any quotes from Dr Larkins himself.

You may as well have said you'd had a chat with the doctor yourself.

Late to the party mate but if you insist.

I said there seemed to be a lot of players going off with unnecessary blood, that was all I said. Larkins said there seemed to be a lot of players going off with unnecessary blood, albeit referred to by Sheahan as you were keen to point out. Not sure how many different ways you can interpret that.

Exhibit is closed. 

58 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Do I have to do anything?

OK Grimey, old buddy.

Hahahaha, Grimey. 

Just now, Sadler said:

Late to the party mate but if you insist.

I said there seemed to be a lot of players going off with unnecessary blood, that was all I said. Larkins said there seemed to be a lot of players going off with unnecessary blood, albeit referred to by Sheahan as you were keen to point out. Not sure how many different ways you can interpret that.

Exhibit is closed. 

Apologies for not having logged onto the site earlier, my bad. I should be logged on permanently to notice when you call someone out for adding "nothing of value" despite that poster actually providing evidence (which was at worst just a counter-argument)?

Also exhibits don't get closed, cases do. But regardless, it's not closed. It's just a debate - you say the blood rule is being over-policed but can't provide any examples, AoB says it's not but Dr Larkins would disagree. Interesting debate, but there still aren't any examples provided by anyone (was Gawn sent off against Geelong unfairly? I'm not sure, I can't recall off the top of my head whether he was actively bleeding or not)

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Apologies for not having logged onto the site earlier, my bad. I should be logged on permanently to notice when you call someone out for adding "nothing of value" despite that poster actually providing evidence (which was at worst just a counter-argument)?

Also exhibits don't get closed, cases do. But regardless, it's not closed. It's just a debate - you say the blood rule is being over-policed but can't provide any examples, AoB says it's not but Dr Larkins would disagree. Interesting debate, but there still aren't any examples provided by anyone (was Gawn sent off against Geelong unfairly? I'm not sure, I can't recall off the top of my head whether he was actively bleeding or not)

Yeah you should, what kind of social justice warrior are you?

Exhibits get closed all the time. “Ladies and gentleman, the Dinosaur exhibit at the museum is closed for cleaning and maintenance.” 

Case closed ?

10 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

you [Sadler] say the blood rule is being over-policed but can't provide any examples, AoB says it's not but Dr Larkins would disagree. Interesting debate, but there still aren't any examples provided by anyone (was Gawn sent off against Geelong unfairly? I'm not sure, I can't recall off the top of my head whether he was actively bleeding or not)

Actually, Sadler said that the rule was not being followed properly. This was their original post.

5 hours 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.

Larkins just thinks that the current rule means that too many players have to come from the ground. He says this because the risk of infection is so small.

My response is about the rule being followed. I haven’t heard or seen any evidence that this rule is not being followed properly.

Ok, nothing more to see here.. I’m off to bed now

1 minute ago, DeezNuts said:

Ok, nothing more to see here.. I’m off to bed now

I’m going to bed too. Goodnight.

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Apologies for not having logged onto the site earlier, my bad. I should be logged on permanently to notice when you call someone out for adding "nothing of value" despite that poster actually providing evidence (which was at worst just a counter-argument)?

Also exhibits don't get closed, cases do. But regardless, it's not closed. It's just a debate - you say the blood rule is being over-policed but can't provide any examples, AoB says it's not but Dr Larkins would disagree. Interesting debate, but there still aren't any examples provided by anyone (was Gawn sent off against Geelong unfairly? I'm not sure, I can't recall off the top of my head whether he was actively bleeding or not)

regardless of what the rule actually says, i still don't see any valid reason for the rule, these days

it's a contact sport and blood will be spilt. The crowd already see it, the tv audience already see it and the media highlight it

we just don't need the rule and it could cost a team a game

the rule was brought in as a knee jerk reaction and doctors are telling us we don't need it, so why not just drop it

19 hours ago, —coach— said:

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.

For the blood rule players can come on before the bleeding player has left the field. The delay is usually because it takes a few seconds to work out that a player is coming off, who should replace them, what rotations are due and a final check to see whether the structures are right and any last minute instructions.. 

On 8/21/2018 at 3:36 PM, beelzebub said:

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

We can probably move on now.

Good question DC 

Years ago I was listening to the pre match talk back on 3 AW and  a guy rang in (this was the days of Harry Beitzel and Tommy Lahiff) and suggested that players should have their own water bottles. In those days players drank straight from a big plastic bottle. Harry and Tommy nearly fell off the phone at the "stupidity of the suggestion". Hygiene wasn't a big thing in the early 80's.

What a difference a few years makes