yesterday in the Kerry v mayo match. Evan Regan got badly injured early on. He broke his collar bone and was concussed.
Mikey Conroy came on for him (AS A BLOOD SUB) and would have no doubt stayed on for the duration of the game if h hadn't got injured himself towards the latter stages. In my estimation Mayo then brought on; darragh O'Connor, Aiden O' Shea,Mikey Sweeney, Colm Boyle, Enda Varley and Barry Moran. In all 22 players.

Now, how on earth are you allowed a blood sub for a man who has broken his collar bone and been badly concussed, has been treated on the pitch for about 5 minutes and leaves on a cart strapped to a stretcher. (BTW I wish him well and I hope he has a speedy recovery).
This is totally against the spirit of the blood-sub rule and not what it was intended for. perhaps Evan Reagan had some small superficial
cut in addition to the other more serious injuries but that is not why he had to leave the field. I believe the ref and officials should have intervened and told Mayo that they couldn't blood-sub at that stage as the man was on his way to hospital with no hope of returning to the fray. It makes a mockery of the whole blood-sub rule. It seems that Mayo like exploiting this rule. They have previous. What do people think.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 02/02/2015 12:38:42    1689151

The guy had a burst lip and so was bleeding. There is no rule that dictates how serious an injury has to be or cannot be. Personally, I seen it as some smart thinking to allow more guys to get a run out in the early part of the league.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 02/02/2015 13:03:59    1689162

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 12529

1689162
The guy had a burst lip and so was bleeding. There is no rule that dictates how serious an injury has to be or cannot be. Personally, I seen it as some smart thinking to allow more guys to get a run out in the early part of the league.
I think the rule should state that the blood injury is the sole reason why the player has to leave the field. I.E. He would be fit to carry on if it hadn't been for the blood injury.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 02/02/2015 13:12:19    1689171

The blood sub rule is more to do with health and safety in this day and age to be fair. Hence any blood stained gear must also be removed. A referee is not a doctor so cannot determine how bad an actual cut or injury is.

daytona11 (Kildare) - Posts: 4012 - 02/02/2015 14:27:28    1689219

daytona11
County: Kildare
Posts: 2818

1689219
The blood sub rule is more to do with health and safety in this day and age to be fair. Hence any blood stained gear must also be removed. A referee is not a doctor so cannot determine how bad an actual cut or injury is.

Right ! and can you relate this to the incident I pointed out in the start of the thread please.
I mean I'm not a doctor either but if a player has to leave the field strapped to a stretcher should a blood sub be introduced in his place or should it be a normal substitute ?.

another amendment to the rule could go like this.:
If the player who has been blood-subbed does not return to the field, then at the conclusion of the game, The blood-sub who replaced him shall be deemed to have been a proper sub. If by the end of the game, the team has used too many subs then they shall forfeit the match. So the onus is on the team management to manage this situation. I mean let's face it, what was the point in bringing on subs in the 69th and 70th minutes anyway. If someone has to go off near the end of a match with a bllod injury, either sub him with a proper sub or, if you have used all your subs then play with 14 until you get him fixed up or until the final whistle.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 02/02/2015 14:42:04    1689230

so if a fella gets his head split open requiring 20 stiches but is also concussed not a blood sub?? dont agree at all with you goldrick.

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1630 - 02/02/2015 14:53:45    1689234

As stated Goldrick, the ref is not a doctor so he is not in a position to know at the time if a player will be fit to play on later in the game.

It's that simple.

daytona11 (Kildare) - Posts: 4012 - 02/02/2015 15:06:50    1689241

jm25
County: Galway
Posts: 874

1689234
so if a fella gets his head split open requiring 20 stiches but is also concussed not a blood sub?? dont agree at all with you goldrick.

of course not a blood-sub. it should be a normal sub as the guy is clearly not fit to take any further part in the game. The bllod-sub rule was intended to be used when you needed a "temporary" replacement for a player who has sustained a cut, a player who would otherwise be fit to continue playing, but because of the new health and safety rules is not allowed to as any player that is bleeding must leave the field of play until the bleeding has been stopped or covered up.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 02/02/2015 15:13:09    1689245

daytona11
County: Kildare
Posts: 2819

1689241
As stated Goldrick, the ref is not a doctor so he is not in a position to know at the time if a player will be fit to play on later in the game.

It's that simple.

I think I have answered that question already.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 02/02/2015 15:23:17    1689250

s goldrick
County: Cavan

...This is totally against the spirit of the blood-sub rule and not what it was intended for...

I agree with the sentiment of the OP. The blood sub rule was brought in for health and safety reasons so that a team wouldn't be penalised if one of their players incurred a blood injury for whatever reason (i.e. they get to bring on a temporary sub while the player is being treated). It also meant that other players would not come in contact with the blood of an opposition player - also a valid consideration. Finally, it meant that the player in question would get to finish the game once the cut had been treated so he would also avoid being penalised for what, in most cases, would not be his fault. However, in a case where the player is unlikely to resume then to bring on a blood sub as opposed to a regular sub, meaning that the team in question gets a "free" sub, circumvents the original reasoning behind bringing in the rule. Perhaps an addendum should be made to the rule, such as if the player who originally sustained the cut has not resumed within a set period of time (5 / 7 / 10 minutes etc. - I'm sure an appropriate medical expert would be able to set a suitable time limit), then the temporary sub becomes a permanent sub. This gives the player plenty of time to recover (if the bleeding cannot be stopped within this time period then it's unlikely that it would be within the player's best interests to resume anyway) and his team would not get an additional substitution.

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 567 - 02/02/2015 15:45:52    1689262

and what about if his head is a little sore but not concussed. people have different pain thresholds some would play on ala terry butcher some will not, say have arjen robbens pain threshold. how do you decree if its a game ending injury. some may fear making the injury worse etc, In my opinion if there an obvoius blood injury then a blood sub should be allowed indefiently

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1630 - 02/02/2015 15:55:17    1689271

How about this example goldrick? Say it happened with 10 to go and mayo had used their subs. Are you saying that a guy who is bleeding cannot be replaced as a blood sub, and mayo should have to go on with 14 men? That is simply ridiculous. Blood is blood and it is the same for everyone. This idea where the ref decides if it is serious enough is only going to lead to different application of the rules. Personally, I would be of the thinking that no team should be reduced to 14 as much as possible unless they have had a guy sent off.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 02/02/2015 16:26:16    1689289

Very simply put in a rule that if the player doesn't return in 10/15 minutes or whatever, the blood sub becomes a permanent one. If the team has already made 6 subs then the permanent sub has to go back off after the time has elapsed. Stops people taking advantage of the rule

square_ball_69 (Westmeath) - Posts: 826 - 02/02/2015 16:36:30    1689296

A time limit is the best way to manage this. A blood sub is supposed to be there to avoid a team being weakened by injury while somebody gets patched up but can play on. Any blood injury that cannot be contained and the bleeding stopped within 10 minutes is likely too serious for the player to return to the field anyway.

Its down to the management to do this properly, but The ref / or linesman could be tasked with keeping track of the time to either ensure the original player returns to the field within 10 minutes, or a formal substitution is made.

Man in a ditch (Louth) - Posts: 321 - 02/02/2015 16:43:37    1689299

what if they patch up their player in 8 minutes but 3 minutes more elapses before a stoppage to allow him back on?? or if it happens 5 mins before half time do they get the full injury time and half time and another 5 mins in the second half?? its just going to create more greyholes and giving the ref another headache he doesnt need and possibly causing a physio/doctor doing a rushed job on attending to a players injury if he/she is under a deadline.

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1630 - 02/02/2015 16:52:19    1689309

Yeah, Mayo are exploiting a loophole here. You can't blame them really. When did they do it before though?

roundball (Tipperary) - Posts: 2514 - 02/02/2015 17:00:29    1689317

yeah mayo were up to no good to get one of their players badly injured. the rotten scoundrels

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1630 - 02/02/2015 17:13:05    1689322

jm25
County: Galway
Posts: 877

1689309 what if they patch up their player in 8 minutes but 3 minutes more elapses before a stoppage to allow him back on?? or if it happens 5 mins before half time do they get the full injury time and half time and another 5 mins in the second half?? its just going to create more greyholes and giving the ref another headache he doesnt need and possibly causing a physio/doctor doing a rushed job on attending to a players injury if he/she is under a deadline

jm25 - With these particular concerns, I have a feeling that you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. There's very simple ways that all of the scenarios you've outlined can be accommodated:
- For the first instance, the management / doctor of the team with the bleeding player will bring the fact that the player is ready to resume to the side line official's attention. Then in the next break in play the swap can be made. As long as the official is notified that the player is ok to resume within the specified time and the official has verified that the cut has been patched and no sign of blood is visible on the skin, bandage or playing kit, then this will not count as a permanent sub. The side line official will be the final arbitrator regarding whether the time has elapsed or not and he will advise relevant management of his decision.
- In the second instances, if it happens just before half time then the medical staff have the entire half time break to ensure they have appropriately treated the wound. At the beginning of the second half management must present the bandaged player to the side line official for inspection before he can be allowed to resume. The premise of the rule is not to grant anyone special liberties but just to ensure that nobody is unduly punished by an injury.
- If a "rushed job" is completed by the team doctor and the cut reopens during play, the player must be permanently substituted. People might argue that this will punish a team but is it any different from if a player is concussed, pulls a muscle or breaks a leg etc. when all subs have already been made? These players cannot be replaced.

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 567 - 02/02/2015 17:18:43    1689327

yes that fair enough but with the instance of pulled muscle that player could stay on like ogara did in all ireland against mayo and even with the patch up been perfect chances are another bang could reopen the cut and therfore would be entitled to another blood sub. i see the merits of the time limit as per concussion but feel it would just create more problems then it would solve i dont know if that lad for mayo could have had a savage bad bust lip that warranted a blood sub yesterday along with the other injury so do you have to tell the ref which injury hes coming off for when treatment is required for both. im just throwing up more scanairos that could occur with what yer suggesting.

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1630 - 02/02/2015 17:35:31    1689338

Fair enough jm25, no rule (or proposed amendment, in this case) is 100% watertight and there'll always be grey areas. We could toss scenario backwards and forwards all day on this. I just feel that having a time limit on the period before a blood sub becomes a permanent sub closes off a loophole that could be exploited by management and is fair if applied to all teams. I think the facility to use 6 subs is plenty if used judiciously so applying a time limit to blood subs really doesn't punish players or teams unduly.

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 567 - 02/02/2015 18:06:13    1689355