Blood Injury Return to FOP

[bester]

Can a player who's left the field of play due to a blood Injury return during play (ie not at a stoppage) after being checked by the assistant?

 

[ARF]

Can a player who's left the field of play due to a blood Injury return during play (ie not at a stoppage) after being checked by the assistant?

In theory yes, in practice I'd rather have the AR keeping their eyes on the FoP rather than checking the player during play.

 

[Archer]

Yeah they can, but if I haven't got a 4th... they're gonna be waiting for the ball to go dead as the three of us will be busy.

 

[DavidObs]

I saw this happen in a National League Game at Dover (NL/S) a few years ago when 4th officials hadn’t arrived yet & not only was it messy, but the Senior AR responsible for the TAs got caught badly out of position with the 2nd rear most defender. Not a good thing to attempt to do without a stoppage with no 4th official.

 

[RustyRef]

Agree with others, no 4th official means he or she waits for a break in play.

 

[one]

Also agree with others in principal. But it is not a hard and fast rule. For example, if you were satisfied that bleeding had stopped even before the player left the field (with whatever quick attention they received on the field), and they only needed to change their shirt, and you have seen the shirt change has happened while play was going on, then signaling the player on during play makes sense. The point is, safety first, but don't ignore fairness.

 

[bester]

Nearly every pre-match where blood injuries are mentioned. "Blood injuries must return at a stoppage"
I'm sure most referees believe that's the actual law.

I've seen this cause quite a bit of aggro when players are off the pitch for extended periods.

 

[ARF]

Nearly every pre-match where blood injuries are mentioned. "Blood injuries must return at a stoppage"
I'm sure most referees believe that's the actual law.

I've seen this cause quite a bit of aggro when players are off the pitch for extended periods.

Well again, unless it's NLN/S or above, it might as well be the law - I'd be fuming if my AR missed an offside/ball out of play etc. because they were too busy checking a player off the field.

 

[one]

Sometimes the team with ten players on field, if they have posession, are willing to forego posession and kick the ball out. But the problem is they don't know the referee is waiting for the ball to go out to inspect the 'blood management'. A bit of good comms can help here.
There is also nothing to stop the ref from stopping play when the ball is in a nuteral position to prevent frustration.

 

[socal lurker]

Well again, unless it's NLN/S or above, it might as well be the law - I'd be fuming if my AR missed an offside/ball out of play etc. because they were too busy checking a player off the field.

Yup. I did a double take, as my first take was that it was the Law. But that’s really because in the games I do, it is the de facto law, as the law does require it to be checked. And no way do I think ARs should be checking while the ball is in play.

 

[bester]

@socal lurker That was rather my point about the perception amongst referees.

I've seen referees marked as incorrect in law for the check not being done at a stoppage.
It may not usually be best practice but there are times when the blood situation is sorted before the player has even left the field of play.
A 1 second look at the half-way line, at an appropriate time, to confirm the bleed hasn't restarted realistically isn't going to cause the assistant to miss anything.

 

[RustyRef]

@socal lurker That was rather my point about the perception amongst referees.

I've seen referees marked as incorrect in law for the check not being done at a stoppage.
It may not usually be best practice but there are times when the blood situation is sorted before the player has even left the field of play.
A 1 second look at the half-way line, at an appropriate time, to confirm the bleed hasn't restarted realistically isn't going to cause the assistant to miss anything.

You don’t know that though. The play might be down the other end but there could be a huge hoofed clearance, how can the AR rule on offside when he is checking a player for blood?

It just isn’t worth the risk.

 

[socal lurker]

@socal lurker That was rather my point about the perception amongst referees.

I've seen referees marked as incorrect in law for the check not being done at a stoppage.
It may not usually be best practice but there are times when the blood situation is sorted before the player has even left the field of play.
A 1 second look at the half-way line, at an appropriate time, to confirm the bleed hasn't restarted realistically isn't going to cause the assistant to miss anything.

With the ARs I work with and the level I do, no way do I ever want my AR engaging off the field with the ball in play. Period. Not enough upside to even consider it. I agree it is technically possible. And I agree anyone marking it as a mistake in Law should go read the book. (But I do quibble about a “1 second look”—if my AR is checking, I want them to pay enough attention to be sure, not just do a quick check because they don’t have time to do it right.)