[Law] Hygiene... Blood

[Huck2Spit]

Read a reply here once, "there's no stupid questions", so here goes: at a midfield ruck ball is on ground black BC & blue tackler release/roll away, no issues. Scan lines, their onsides, then back to ruck everyones on their feet "rucking" when dollops of blood fall directly on to the ball--like a good amount of blood. Black team wins ruck & passes it out. It's knocked on, no advantage since it's immediately regathered. I whistle KO black scrum to blue, then time off "whoever is bleeding needs to go off". Was a bigger ruck & not sure of all participants but I did a brief inspection of both teams yet can't find an obvious active bleeder. Request a new ball and restart with scrum to blue.
Protocol for such things?

 

[winchesterref]

Did you notice before the ball was passed out of the breakdown?
If it was loads, I would probably whistle, clean/swap the ball and scrum to black in possession.

If you noticed after they knocked on, then yes scrum blue as black dropped it.

 

[RobLev]

Did you notice before the ball was passed out of the breakdown?
If it was loads, I would probably whistle, clean/swap the ball and scrum to black in possession.

If you noticed after they knocked on, then yes scrum blue as black dropped it.

I think Huck was looking for advice on how to deal with an unidentified someone bleeding on the ball but not owning up. He knows someone needs to go off for a blood injury, but can't work out who. Does he stop the game until the bleeder starts bleeding again so he can be identified; carry on, knowing that there's an untreated blood injury on the pitch, with potential consequences for the health of the other players; or what?

 

[Pegleg]

Read a reply here once, "there's no stupid questions", so here goes: at a midfield ruck ball is on ground black BC & blue tackler release/roll away, no issues. Scan lines, their onsides, then back to ruck everyones on their feet "rucking" when dollops of blood fall directly on to the ball--like a good amount of blood. Black team wins ruck & passes it out. It's knocked on, no advantage since it's immediately regathered. I whistle KO black scrum to blue, then time off "whoever is bleeding needs to go off". Was a bigger ruck & not sure of all participants but I did a brief inspection of both teams yet can't find an obvious active bleeder. Request a new ball and restart with scrum to blue.
Protocol for such things?

I am a little confused.

This bit...Scan lines, they're onside, then back to the ruck everyone's on their feet "rucking" when dollops of blood fall directly on to the ball--like a good amount of blood.

How do you know it happened at this point and it was a lot of blood? Unless you saw it happen.

If there was a lot of blood it would surely be obvious on the person who was bleeding. Sorry but this does not make sense to me.

Back to the facts as presented.

1 The restart is for the Knock on as normal.

2 Regarding the blood issue. I would require both physios to come on and check all the possible bleeders before the game continues. If, following the check the wound has healed then we play on.

But sorry if a player had bled that profusely there will be blood on kit, hair, bodies etc.

 

[leaguerefaus]

I'm not going to make a distasteful joke about what if this happened at a women's rugby match. Nope.

 

[winchesterref]

I think Huck was looking for advice on how to deal with an unidentified someone bleeding on the ball but not owning up. He knows someone needs to go off for a blood injury, but can't work out who. Does he stop the game until the bleeder starts bleeding again so he can be identified; carry on, knowing that there's an untreated blood injury on the pitch, with potential consequences for the health of the other players; or what?

Ah. If you can't see who is bleeding, you can't stop and make everyone go off.

If it's that much blood as described, there's no way you wouldn't be able to see it.

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not going to make a distasteful joke about what if this happened at a women's rugby match. Nope.

Acctually it's a fair point. It could happen and would need to be addressed. Thankfully it's never happened to me. But it would be bloody obvious if it did. As would the OP's scenario as far as I can see.

 

[Huck2Spit]

It was a mens match so nothing menstrual-- I can only assume. To clairfy, when scanning back to the ruck I did see 2-3 tablespoons of blood fall onto the ball (enough to leave a grapefruit-sized stain on the ball). In the few seconds it took me to process this odd occurrence the ball was passed out and knocked on.
Rob Lowe got the essence of my question. I recognized a few players who were in that ruck and looked them over, nothing. Then looked over the players in that general area of the field, still nothing. Maybe the black jerseys hid the stain well but no one was obviously bleeding or covered in blood. A few scuffed knees were cleaned up. This was a lower-level social/ friendly match so the physio staff to speak of. Medical for the day was a spectator / paramedic. Kept a close eye out for the culprit for the rest of the match and couldn't find him. My best guess in hindsight was contact during the ruck caused a quick nose gusher that stopped right away.
Like when a player is down injured if play is away play continues, generally. So is seeing red an obedient stoppage?

 

[Huck2Spit]

Silly auto correct, meant RobLev not lowe, and immediate not obedient.

 

[OB..]

Silly auto correct, meant RobLev not lowe, and immediate not obedient.

I don't think I'll try auto-correct on your username ...

 

[Pegleg]

To clairfy, when scanning back to the ruck I did see 2-3 tablespoons of blood fall onto the ball (enough to leave a grapefruit-sized stain on the ball).So is seeing red an obedient stoppage?

If I saw a grapefruit sized stain of blood I'd be blowing my whistle thats a fair wack of blood. It needs to be sorted.

 

[Huck2Spit]

Yes, agreed, the amount of blood had me concerned. (Play stopped with in seconds of seeing it happen and I stopped my watch to sort it out...Someone was hurt, they had dropped a lot of blood.) Even more concerned when no one owned up or could be identified as bleeding. ( I expected someone needed a sub if not stitches.)
What else could i do beyond the steps I took; stopping, asking, looking and replacing the ball, is the match to be held up? More medical/ training staff would be great in this circumstance but that wasn't the case yesterday.
Say a BC running collides with a potential tackler, breaks the tackle, but splits his head in a bloody mess in the contact yet he continues to run 30-40 more meters for try, call that back b/c lots of blood? I think I'd award the try.

 

[Pegleg]

Why do we stop for blood? First ask that question. The answer leads you forward.

The basic problems are the risk to the bleeder and cross contamination. Or to put it simply SAFETY!

Now if there is that much blood. We have two issues:

1: The bleeder has suffered a serious injury. A big cut - therefore he is requiring urgent treatment.

or a head cut - these often bleed quite profusely even though the cut can be very small. There is however a further complication here: CONCUSSION!

2: Blood infection to other players.

Now if it was clear, to you, that the blood was not serious so you let him run to score. That seems fair. But what if he is tackled and the tackler gets blood in his mouth etc in making the tackle. Who allowed that to happen? YOU!

Or he runs after a clash of heads. He scores and collapses bue to concussion. Who let him play on when a check was needed? YOU!

Even if he is "OK" you now have a trail of blood on the pitch. The game now must be stopped and the blood dealt with.

It's your call. That is why you are in the middle. You have to answer for you calls.


My approach is:

Unexplained blood loss I'm stopping the game and getting the situation resolved. If no one "comes clean" or the the physios can't assure me that all is ok, the game is not going to continue.

If there are no Physios I'll deal with the coaches and unless I am happy no play on. The safety of the 29 other players is paramount.

If your new scenario about the clash of heads happens and there is blood, again I'm stopping the game. If there was no blood I would make a call based on the impact and I may still stop the game I may let it play on and I'll keep an eye on the players concerned.

We have a duty of care. It's up to you to set your standards and answer for them.

 

[didds]

I don't disagree with Pegleg particularly, but in the OP despite the sizable blood evidence, equally there is no evidence that anybody is now actually bleeding.

So you stop the game. And have 30 bleed free players all scratching their heads.

didds

 

[Dan_A]

In the OP's scenario I wouldn't mind betting it was a nose bleed. I've seen several players this season with a nose bleed who were completely oblivious.

 

[Dixie]

Acctually it's a fair point. It could happen and would need to be addressed. Thankfully it's never happened to me. But it would be bloody obvious if it did. As would the OP's scenario as far as I can see.

I see what you did there. :clap:

 

[L'irlandais]

My approach is:

Unexplained blood loss I'm stopping the game and getting the situation resolved. If no one "comes clean" or the the physios can't assure me that all is ok, the game is not going to continue..

it is possible the player doesn't even realize he is bleeding. stud nick to the back of head, or whatever. It is a grassroots game, there are no physios.
Are you really going to call off the game?

 

[Pegleg]

The OP talks about a lot of blood: "...when dollops of blood fall directly on to the ball--like a good amount of blood...". & "...To clairfy, when scanning back to the ruck I did see 2-3 tablespoons of blood fall onto the ball (enough to leave a grapefruit-sized stain on the ball)..." That will be identifiable. If it is a small unnoticable amount of blood then I'm not likely to see it. So yes if the blood loss is noticable and copious there is an issue needs checking and its going to be checked. IF the check shows that any blood los has stopped then we are fine to go. Are you seriously saying that the person described in the OP would not be aware of the blood loss? I would find that stretching believe.

Perhaps the OP was using "dramatic Licence" in his description. I am basing my reply on the facts as presented.

 

[L'irlandais]

In the rush of adrenaline, one of them may quite simply have not noticed.

For example
Did not realise he needed 11 stitches until he had a look to see why things hurt so much at half time.

A player with a cut above the hair line to the back of the head, may well think "my head hurts" but honestly not think he is the one who has bled on the ball. Give them the benefit of the doubt, not all players are going to lie to stay on the field of play.