Problem with the blood rule

[sandie]

When the blood rule was first introduced I was concerned that the best players would be targeted by the opposition to get them off the ground, while the instigator gets to stay on the ground, even if they are reported.
In my earlier post about Peter Somerville, I thought that was poetic justice to the player who had broken his nose, he had to go off the ground too.
Maybe if there is a deliberate act of making a player bleed, that player should have to go off as well, for as long as the injured player, what does everyone else think.
Could stop a lot of deliberate attacks.


------------------
Mantis

 

[Pessimistic]

Yes I remember last year those melbourne jellyfish pointing out a minute spec of red on paul salmon near the end of the game with scores level. They weren't concerned about HIV etc, they wanted Salmon off because he was dominating

The spec turned out to be red paint from a coca cola sign on the boundary fence

 

[jod23]

Sandie, i dont agree most of the time its not deliberate and to take the other player off just cos one person is bleeding is stupid. Anyways they could get around your way, you could just get a nobody to make Hird bleed ect ect.

 

[sandie]

Jod 23 what are you talking about, they are already getting nobodys to take out good players & when they do they should be penalized as well. You would be the first one to scream if one of your precious Eagles was bleeding from a hit from another player & had to go off, while the perpetrator stayed on the ground, but I guess in typical WC tradition you would only want the rule to apply for your team.


------------------
Mantis

 

[sandie]

Jod 23
Oh & by the way if you had read my post properly, I said if it was a deliberate act they should be sent off, not if it was accidental.

------------------
Mantis

 

[Eagle_Fan]

But if it's a deliberate act, you'd hope that the free and 50 would have been paid already.

I think what Somerville did is disgusting. Did he get suspended for it? The blood rule (however contencious) is in place for a reason, and by wiping his blood on another player, he's (potentially) risking their health. I know the current risks are near non-existent, but they do exist and the rule should never be deliberately broken like that.

With regards to pointing out blood on an opposition player, I guess you'd hope it wouldn't happen, but like I said the rule is in place for a reason, and teams shouldn't be penalised for abiding by it.

BTW/ After what happened last Friday, I don't really think you can keep referring to Eagles taking out opponants, can you?

 

[sandie]

What the hell is wrong with you eagles people, can't you read or what. I never referred to the eagles taking out opponents, I said if one of the eagles got hit, please don't accuse me of saying something I didn't.

------------------
Mantis

 

[Richmondfan#1]

Hey sandie,
I've heard rumours that people want to introduce a sin bin. That is WAY worse than the blood rule. A sin bin would almost demolish the great game. Please footy....not rugby.

 

[jod23]

Hey Sandie calm down save it for the fantasy Footy

I see your point but a lot of the times the refs dont actually see the incident they just see the blood and make the player leave the ground so how could you tell if it was deliberate or not?