Umpiring question?

[rayven]

Have the umpires been told to ignore oppisition players telling them someone has blood on them or is bleeding?

I have seen many a time the blood rule being implemented as a result of information supplied by an oppisition player.

Now the umpire in tassie completly ignored information supplied by freo players about the siren,now for this ump to have any credibilty shouldnt all information supplied by an oppisition player be disregarded in any circumstance?

Then thier is evidence to the tribunal that has impacted on a ruling.

 

[James23]

the players advise the umpires to look at the blood on the player, the umpire then will look and if they see blood then the player is take off accordingly. so they do not take the players word for it without looking themselves.. likewise the umpires arent going to take the players word for it if the siren did go and theres no way of the umpire checking if the siren did go and didnt hear

 

[Southerntakeover]

the players advise the umpires to look at the blood on the player, the umpire then will look and if they see blood then the player is take off accordingly. so they do not take the players word for it without looking themselves.. likewise the umpires arent going to take the players word for it if the siren did go and theres no way of the umpire checking if the siren did go and didnt hear

The correct answer.

If the player was no longer bleeding, and the opposition said that they had been bleeding the umpire would not send them off, thats a more accurate analogy.

 

[rayven]

likewise the umpires arent going to take the players word for it if the siren did go and theres no way of the umpire checking if the siren did go and didnt hear

I was under the impression the reserve umpire heard the siren and it would of took around 30 seconds in time on to clarify,If they check about blood on players as a result of other players information then why didnt they do it in this case?