Bloody Players

[WilliamD]

Had my third and final observation of the promo season today. Think it went very well and was challenging enough to show where I'm at (had to dismiss the manager and had a few other KMIs that I feel I managed well). Positive debrief after with good feedback and some top tips...so I'm pleased

There was one technical incident in the match that I'd like to get thoughts/clarification on. With the ball in play a green player went off the pitch to his bench (rather pile of bags) to deal with a bloody nose. I hadn't noticed he went off until there was a throw in near the benches but it seems to have only been a few seconds. Observer is standing about 3 feet from the bleeding guy btw. I decided first of all - I'm not cautioning him for leaving the FoP w/o permission. Nobody would be expecting that and it would be insanely harsh at this level. I'd much rather him off the pitch than bleeding on the field. I tell the player that he can not come back on until he has stopped bleeding, there is no blood on his shirt, and he gets my permission to renter - which I will only give at a stoppage so I can check the blood. He says ok and two or three stoppages latter he asks to return I go over and check his nose/shirt and let him on. All good.

After the match the observer said I handled that perfectly for the tone of the match and situation and said he would of done everything the same...but he said technically in law we no longer have to give permission for a bleeding player to renter the field....what?? I didn't query as we were generally having a nice chat and he was generally really positive. Can anyone shed some light?

 

[es1]

Very similar situation to yours yesterday which I handled the same, supply league game with observer. No comment made after the game so imo you're right !

 

[Padfoot]

Should have cautioned. No excuses for not doing so. Observer incorrect if he says otherwise. It's a mandatory caution, no room for discretion.

According to the LOTG, The player may only re-enter on receiving a signal from the referee, who must be satisfied that the bleeding has stopped and that there is no blood on the equipment.
So your observer was wrong about that as well. Law 5 section 3 if you want to look it up yourself.

 

[WelshRef01]

Should have cautioned. No excuses for not doing so. Observer incorrect if he says otherwise. It's a mandatory caution, no room for discretion.

According to the LOTG, The player may only re-enter on receiving a signal from the referee, who must be satisfied that the bleeding has stopped and that there is no blood on the equipment.
So your observer was wrong about that as well. Law 5 section 3 if you want to look it up yourself.

Its harsh Imo. I wouldn't do it, maybe a quick word in the ear just to let me know or something, but for leaving the pitch with a nose bleed I wouldn't caution - this is where the spirit of play comes in.

 

[Padfoot]

Its harsh Imo. I wouldn't do it, maybe a quick word in the ear just to let me know or something, but for leaving the pitch with a nose bleed I wouldn't caution - this is where the spirit of play comes in.

Nope. No option to use discretion. Mandatory caution.

Another classic example of the "spirit of the game" nonsense being used to justify weak refereeing.

 

[WilliamD]

Just reading the LoTG @Padfoot. Law 5 says the referee must ensure that a bleeding player leaves the field of play. Surely a player leaving himself is helping us out and not a caution/fine. Seems common sense first of all and second I don't think the law justifies "mandatory" here.

On the second part so far we're all on the same page.

 

[Padfoot]

Just reading the LoTG @Padfoot. Law 5 says the referee must ensure that a bleeding player leaves the field of play. Surely a player leaving himself is helping us out and not a caution/fine. Seems common sense first of all and second I don't think the law justifies "mandatory" here.

On the second part so far we're all on the same page.

Did you give the player permission before they left the field of play? No? Mandatory caution under Law 12.

Common sense doesn't come into it.

 

[WilliamD]

There are ways to "ensure" a player leaves the field whilst bleeding without giving permission. No? Including perhaps not cautioning a player when they do what's required by law.

 

[Padfoot]

There are ways to "ensure" a player leaves the field whilst bleeding without giving permission. No? Including perhaps not cautioning a player when they do what's required by law.

You cannot use part of one Law to excuse not applying a mandatory part of Law just because you thought it would be "harsh".

Wiggle all you want, you missed a mandatory caution. Your observer should not be congratulating that, and should mark you as "Below Standard" on Application of Law......if they are doing the job properly that is.

 

[santa sangria]

My permission is implicitly given for a player to rapidly leave the FoP to stem the flow of blood from their nose, particularly to mitigate the risk of aggravating a condition, bloodying equipment, or blooding other players.

Or

I gave my permission as soon as I became aware the player left the field to treat a blood injury.

...I would be happy with either of these as law 12 does not specify when permission should be given and does not specify an action or signal for permission. I would argue that the laws omit the detail of "permission" to give us scope to handle cases like this

 

[Padfoot]

My permission is implicitly given for a player to rapidly leave the FoP to stem the flow of blood from their nose, particularly to mitigate the risk of aggravating a condition, bloodying equipment, or blooding other players.

Or

I gave my permission as soon as I became aware the player left the field to treat a blood injury.

...I would be happy with either of these as law 12 does not specify when permission should be given and does not specify an action or signal for permission. I would argue that the laws omit the detail of "permission" to give us scope to handle cases like this

And you would equally as wrong in your hopeful interpretation of a very clear mandatory instruction.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

My permission is implicitly given for a player to rapidly leave the FoP to stem the flow of blood from their nose, particularly to mitigate the risk of aggravating a condition, bloodying equipment, or blooding other players.

Or

I gave my permission as soon as I became aware the player left the field to treat a blood injury.

...I would be happy with either of these as law 12 does not specify when permission should be given and does not specify an action or signal for permission. I would argue that the laws omit the detail of "permission" to give us scope to handle cases like this

Nowhere in the laws does it say that permission to leave has to be given before the player leaves the field. Therefore the implied consent to leave argument stands up.

 

[Padfoot]

Nowhere in the laws does it say that permission to leave has to be given before the player leaves the field. Therefore the implied consent to leave argument stands up.

Rubbish and you know it.

Might also be worth considering what caused the bleeding and why the referee wasn't aware of it earlier?

 

[santa sangria]

(Just because someone finds a different interpretation to the meaning of a phrase in the LotG does not mean they are shirking any responsibilities. It certainly doesn't mean that just because someone is having a semantic argument with you they might be negligent about some other incident. Bracketed because probably doesn't need to be said.)

 

[RefJef]

If I'm having to YC someone because they've left the pitch without asking me because they are bleeding then I'm going to pack it all in.

 

[Padfoot]

(Just because someone finds a different interpretation to the meaning of a phrase in the LotG does not mean they are shirking any responsibilities. It certainly doesn't mean that just because someone is having a semantic argument with you they might be negligent about some other incident. Bracketed because probably doesn't need to be said.)

Except, of course, when they are using that different, erroneous, interpretation to shirk their responsibilities in applying the LOTG. You know, like using a spurious interpretation to avoid showing a clear mandatory yellow card........

If I'm having to YC someone because they've left the pitch without asking me because they are bleeding then I'm going to pack it all in.

Sorry to see you go.

 

[RustyRef]

So do you caution a player who goes off the pitch to get the ball back? Or take a throw-in, or a corner, or get the medical kit for an injured player, etc, etc, etc. You haven't given permission, unless you are very busy, but they have left the field of play.

If a player is bleeding he has to leave the field of play. If he wants to do this under his own steam I will give him my implied permission, just the same as I would do for any of the other things I have listed above. The key thing is he isn't coming back on until the blood has been cleared and I've check this is the case.

 

[WilliamD]

Thanks all for the feedback. The open question now given the overwhelming consensus is whether our friend and colleague @Padfoot can admit there is another valid point of view other than his own.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Anybody that thinks you should be cautioning for this needs to understand the laws of the game rather than simply attempting to apply the text like a mindless bureaucrat. Of course you're not going to caution somebody for stepping off the field to attend to a bleed.
And your assessor is wrong - he certainly does need permission to return to the field.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Dem Laws are dem Laws but sometimes a bit of Common Sense needs applying too in certain situations... Or else it may not be just Blooded Players that are the only problem!!!