fair enough i just think having an ulimited timeframe on a blood injury will be fine too and make life easier and will be the same across the board once the referee approves that the player is bleeding and authorises the blood sub

jm25 (Galway) - Posts: 1630 - 02/02/2015 18:14:00    1689357

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 12531

1689289
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.

If the incident that happenned to Evan Reagan (if that is what you are implying) happened with 10 minutes to go and Mayo had used all their subs , well that's unfortunate but like everyone else in that situation they would have to play on with 14 men. 6 subs should be enough . You will find that alot of managers throw on thir final sub or perhaps final 2 in the last couple of minutes anyway. Any decent manager should keep a sub in reserve in case of a late injury. If they use all their subs and there is still 10 mins to go then that's tough. Some people on here seem to be confused with the rule and are coming up with scenarios regarding injured players. The rule was not brought in to allow a temporary sub for an injured player . It was brought in for the purposes replacing a player with a temporary sub whilst the original player was having his bllod injury cleaned up.

If a genuine blood injury occurs near the end of a game then throw on a proper sub . (you should have one left).

perhaps increase the number of subs to 7 if that makes people happy (after all Mayo seem to get away with 7 at the moment anyway).

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 03/02/2015 11:49:04    1689542

Blood subs shouldn't count as a normal sub. However if 15 minutes(GAA decides how long) have passed and the player who went off with the blood injury hasn't returned then the blood sub counts as a normal sub. Nice, simple, easy way that everyone can follow and no messing around then.

ormondbannerman (Clare) - Posts: 13473 - 04/02/2015 14:48:43    1690028

I see Martin Breheny agrees with me in todays independent.

link

Although the 15 minute rule is too simplistic. You have to cover all bases before making a rule like this. There are scenarios where you could get into trouble with a15 minute rule. Especially towards the end of the game. Or what about a situation when all official subs are used, there is a potential situation whereby the bloodsub could become official and cause the team to forfeit the game

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 04/02/2015 19:32:05    1690187

If the infallible Martin Brehony, Mayo's biggest fan, agrees with you then you must be right.

Miler (Mayo) - Posts: 1015 - 04/02/2015 20:06:03    1690198

if the infallible martin breheny , mayo's biggest fan , agrees with u then u must be right.

Miler (Mayo) - Posts: 1015 - 04/02/2015 20:22:10    1690206

That's a very tongue in cheek comment 'milar'! I have make this point before on numerous occasions goldrick. It's unfair and sporting to the opposition but unfortunately while the loophole exists, it will be exploited.

I argued this point a couple of years ago, when Meath played Dublin in an O'Byrne Cup semi final. The match had gone to extra time, with both counties having already made 6 subs each, and both (Meath (2) and Dublin (1)) had players sent off. They both returned to the full compliment for extra time, which is in the rules, making it 8 (Meath) and 7 (Dublin) replacements used. However, Dublin made a further 3 substitutions in the extra periods, plus they permanently replaced 2 blood subs (namely Darren Daly and Declan Bastic, I think), bringing a grand total of 14 replacements, 3 more should be permitted. People just said, that the rules bent slightly. In my opinion, it's unsporting. We lost by the way, and deservedly so in extra time!

David (Meath) - Posts: 567 - 04/02/2015 21:44:00    1690241

But he was bleeding goldrick. How would you mean to enforce this blocking of the blood sub rule for someone who is bleeding? Surely there is now an argument that it is yourself who is applying the rule as it was not meant, i.e. it was designed to allow teams to keep 15 men on the field is someone needs treatment. Well regan needs treatment and you are forcing the team to 14 men, even though he fits the criteria set out. What ref is going to dictate to the doctor about how serious an injury is? Isnt the whole point at the break meant to allow the doctor to assess the injury and attempt to patch it up? Yet the ref can do it in seconds. Amazing. People forget, nobody knew how bad regan was at the time. It could have been just a sprain and he could have came back on after half time. You don't know until it is examined properly. Therefore, at the time, a blood sub made sense. Now you can force teams to make a permanent sub afterwards, but I would ask why? What is the point? Surely the guy going off was superior to the guy coming on, and it wasn't a tactical switch. Leave it a blood sub I say and let the game flow a bit. There is nothing positive in punishing a team because a guy got injured.

The only completely fair way to apply the rule is this - if a guy is bleeding, he is eligible for a blood sub, and that goes for every team. Otherwise there are just too many pitfalls involved. People are hung up on the fact that it is mayo for some reason. It will be someone else after the weekend. The reason for that is because this is the league and managers want to give as many guys as much game time as they can. Best of luck to them I say. Forcing teams down to 14 men because of the minute specifics of an injury isn't what the gaa is about. Personally, Id be expanding the blood sub to dislocations of fingers etc. Why does there have to be blood specifically?

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 05/02/2015 11:00:43    1690320

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

In the semi final against Dublin in 2012 they replaced a player that had broken his finger with a blood sub because there was a tiny bit of blood visible on his finger. This is a typical example, as was last week, of the rule being exploited for an unfair advantage and not in the spirit of the rule.
I don't mean to single Mayo out as I'm sure many others are doing similar when the opportunity presents itself, but the rule was introduced for genuine health and safety reasons but is now been seen as just a tactic to use in games.
Perhaps more importantly the rule should be broadened to cover concussions, which can be even more serious and could cause long term damage to players. I know the nay sayers will claim that it would be too hard to implement, but surely an independent doctor could make such a call at big games.

AHP (Dublin) - Posts: 323 - 05/02/2015 11:55:03    1690340

Master, Did Evan Reagan have to leave the field because of a blood injury ?
would he have been able to carry on if it hadn't been for his cut lip. ?

I think you are arguing that Mayo played it by the rules and that the ref played it by the rules. You are correct.
That is not my point. My point is that the rule needs to be looked at as it is been exploited and not been used for the purpose it was intended. I can't see how you can argue with that. Are you saying that every player who is injured should be replaced with a temporary sub untill such time as it can be ascertained whether or not he can resume. If so then a totally different arguement.

What I am saying is: " would the player be fit to resume playing if it were not for the blood injury" If the answer is No, then the player should be officially subbed.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 05/02/2015 11:59:41    1690343

In the semi final against Dublin in 2012 they replaced a player that had broken his finger with a blood sub because there was a tiny bit of blood visible on his finger.

This to me illustrates the problem. They didn't know at the time if he would be able to continue. Guys often strap up a finger and carry on. At the time of making the decision, this was the correct move. It only came to light later that he needed to go to hospital to get it put back into place, but this can usually be done on the sideline. You are using hindsight quite liberally.


Same goes with regan. At the time of making the decision, the injury assessment wasn't complete. Anyone who has had a bad dead arm injury can tell you, you cant move it, then 10-15 minutes later you could play on. Managers want to give their player every chance to continue, and they are right to do so. goldrick asks would be have been able to carry on with a cut lip - no he wouldn't, he had to go off to get treatment, as for his other injuries, a full assessment needed to take place and I don't see why they cant do that while treating the blood injury. Or is that too logical? I think it is important not to take away from the game by simply being sticklers about exact wordings and phrases in the rule.


What I am saying is: " would the player be fit to resume playing if it were not for the blood injury" If the answer is No, then the player should be officially subbed.

At the time of making the decision as regards what kind of sub it needed to be, this was not clear. In that type of situation, I say let it go. If in turn he cannot continue Id be of the mind that forcing a sub on the team, for what was an unfortunate injury, doesn't add anything to the game. And similarly, the enforcement of such a rule would undoubtedly end up with a big error from a ref and maybe losing a game on the back of it. Who decides the guy is unable to continue goldrick?

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 05/02/2015 12:49:24    1690354

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 12560

1690354
In the semi final against Dublin in 2012 they replaced a player that had broken his finger with a blood sub because there was a tiny bit of blood visible on his finger.

This to me illustrates the problem. They didn't know at the time if he would be able to continue. Guys often strap up a finger and carry on. At the time of making the decision, this was the correct move. It only came to light later that he needed to go to hospital to get it put back into place, but this can usually be done on the sideline. You are using hindsight quite liberally.


Same goes with regan. At the time of making the decision, the injury assessment wasn't complete. Anyone who has had a bad dead arm injury can tell you, you cant move it, then 10-15 minutes later you could play on. Managers want to give their player every chance to continue, and they are right to do so. goldrick asks would be have been able to carry on with a cut lip - no he wouldn't, he had to go off to get treatment, as for his other injuries, a full assessment needed to take place and I don't see why they cant do that while treating the blood injury. Or is that too logical? I think it is important not to take away from the game by simply being sticklers about exact wordings and phrases in the rule.


What I am saying is: " would the player be fit to resume playing if it were not for the blood injury" If the answer is No, then the player should be officially subbed.

At the time of making the decision as regards what kind of sub it needed to be, this was not clear. In that type of situation, I say let it go. If in turn he cannot continue Id be of the mind that forcing a sub on the team, for what was an unfortunate injury, doesn't add anything to the game. And similarly, the enforcement of such a rule would undoubtedly end up with a big error from a ref and maybe losing a game on the back of it. Who decides the guy is unable to continue goldrick?


I don't understand your mindset Master.
There have always been injuries in the game. serious injuries and minor injuries. Managers have had to decide wheteher to use a sub or whether to give it a few minutes to see if the player can run it off and resume. Not so long ago there were only 3 subs allowed so It was important to use your subs wisely. nowadays you have 6 subs at your disposal. If a player goes down with a knock , the manager/physio asses the player and a decision is made whether he can continue or whether a sub should be used. That is as it should be.

lets say that evan reagan didn't sustain a cut lip in Sunday's game. what do you think the management would have done. do you think they would have said, "let's wait and see if he can continue (they didn't have to make a decision straight away as the player was treated for 5 minutes on the pitch, so the game was stopped. So as the left the field (strapped to a stretcher) do you think they would have said lets give it a few minutes to see if he is fit to resume.

The point you have made regarding the mayo player with the dislocated finger actually backs up my point rather than yours. The player couldn't continue because his finger was out-of-joint , therefore he should either be officially subbed or not subbed at all,. It is irrelavant that he also has a cut finger.

by your reasoning if a player does his cruciate and at the same time has a nosebleed he should blood-subbed .

that is a very strange mindset.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 05/02/2015 13:29:41    1690373

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 12560

it was designed to allow teams to keep 15 men on the field is someone needs treatment.

I don't think it was. It was designed in the wake of the directive that a player who is bleeding has to leave the field of play.
this directive was brought in to ensure player safety in case there was any transmission of disease from person to person.

previous to this players could carry on with blood injuries if they felt comfortable enough. Now a player has to leave the field immediately the referee realises that blood is present.

so that is why the blood-sub rule was brought in, not for any other injury.

any other injury should be dealt with as it always was, either by official sub or no sub.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 05/02/2015 13:35:27    1690376

This to me illustrates the problem. They didn't know at the time if he would be able to continue. Guys often strap up a finger and carry on. At the time of making the decision, this was the correct move. It only came to light later that he needed to go to hospital to get it put back into place, but this can usually be done on the sideline. You are using hindsight quite liberally.

I don't think I'm using hindsight liberally at all. Anybody that saw the shot of his finger that day could clearly see it was broken, and even if the team doctor didn't realise that it was badly injured, surely it must have dawned on somebody over the next 50 minutes or whatever period of time he was gone that he wasn't coming back onto the field.
Secondly as has been pointed out here several times, the rule was not introduced to facilitate treatment of injured players, it was only brought in to avoid the risk of contamination of spilled blood, all other injuries should be treated as they always were, either patch the player up on the pitch so he can carry on, and if the injury is more serious then take them off.

AHP (Dublin) - Posts: 323 - 05/02/2015 15:38:27    1690422

s goldrick
I don't understand your mindset Master.
There have always been injuries in the game. serious injuries and minor injuries. Managers have had to decide wheteher to use a sub or whether to give it a few minutes to see if the player can run it off and resume. Not so long ago there were only 3 subs allowed so It was important to use your subs wisely. nowadays you have 6 subs at your disposal. If a player goes down with a knock , the manager/physio asses the player and a decision is made whether he can continue or whether a sub should be used. That is as it should be.

My mindset is to make the rules work for the good of the game. Yours seems to be bend the game to suit your specific interpretation of the rules.

We have often seen lads go off for treatment and come back on, haven't we? So now you are saying they have to be subbed instantly. You are now changing how the game has worked in the past. Guys went off for treatment and were allowed back on. The blood sub rule states that a guy can now come on in his place when blood is spilled. I ask you again, who decides the player cant continue? How do they justify it to trained medical professionals? You keep dodging this question.


lets say that evan reagan didn't sustain a cut lip in Sunday's game. what do you think the management would have done. do you think they would have said, "let's wait and see if he can continue (they didn't have to make a decision straight away as the player was treated for 5 minutes on the pitch, so the game was stopped. So as the left the field (strapped to a stretcher) do you think they would have said lets give it a few minutes to see if he is fit to resume.

Im not sure, possibly. Maybe not in a league game, but say it was an AI final and regan was Michael murphy for donegal. Do you think they would be hauling him off instantly or giving him every opportunity to play on? How is the ref going to decide that in the couple of minutes directly after the incident? The stretcher is precautionary. Once it is properly assessed it could be found that it wasn't needed and the guy is fine - that window in between is where the decision about the type of substitution is made. It is simply not possible to guarantee enough correct decisions in that timeframe to warrant this type of enforcement. That is the bottom line.


The point you have made regarding the mayo player with the dislocated finger actually backs up my point rather than yours. The player couldn't continue because his finger was out-of-joint , therefore he should either be officially subbed or not subbed at all,. It is irrelavant that he also has a cut finger.

No it doesn't. At the time of taking him off they undoubtedly expected to be able to put it back in and strap it up. So why would they make a permanent substitution at that point? That is nonsense. If there was no blood they wouldn't have replaced him straight away either as they would have tried to keep him on the field, the way it has always been.


by your reasoning if a player does his cruciate and at the same time has a nosebleed he should blood-subbed .

Again, that depends. Do they know it is a cruciate at the time? Generally no. Maybe he is able to walk on it afterwards, like the gooch was. The sensible thing to do there is blood sub him, tidy up the cut, and after that time see how his other bang is doing. From the doctors viewpoint at the time, it might just be a sore bang on the knee. How do you propose refs can see that it is a cruciate injury on the spot? x-ray vision?

Also, if a guy is eligible for a blood injury, then it is up to the team management whether they want to go that route or not. You cant force them to do something else, just like you cant force a team to play man for man. It is their decision.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 05/02/2015 16:16:00    1690440

AHP
I don't think I'm using hindsight liberally at all. Anybody that saw the shot of his finger that day could clearly see it was broken, and even if the team doctor didn't realise that it was badly injured, surely it must have dawned on somebody over the next 50 minutes or whatever period of time he was gone that he wasn't coming back onto the field.

His finger was dislocated... They found later that they couldn't get it back in straight away - which is quite unusual. Blood sub was the correct decision as he potentially could have had the cut sorted, the finger put back in and came back on. What you are proposing is effectively, force a guy to be subbed instantly because of a dislocated finger. That was never the case in the gaa.


Secondly as has been pointed out here several times, the rule was not introduced to facilitate treatment of injured players, it was only brought in to avoid the risk of contamination of spilled blood, all other injuries should be treated as they always were, either patch the player up on the pitch so he can carry on, and if the injury is more serious then take them off.

Surely the treatment of a wound on a player to stop it bleeding, is in fact treatment of an injured player...

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 05/02/2015 16:24:54    1690441

Your argument doesn't makes sense Master. As others said the blood sub rule was introduced to protect the health of other players on the field. For Reagan, quite quickly after leaving the field medical treatment would have ensured his lip had stopped bleeding and the blood cleaned up, therefore there was no justification for him being categorised as a blood sub any longer. If the medics were not treating his lip then the reason he left the field was clearly not just blood related. Similarly for the lad with the dislocated finger, the blood on him would also have been cleaned up quickly. Therefore it is then the managements decision to return him to the field of play or make a formal substitution -to do neither is to exploit the rules. You seem to be suggesting that management should be allowed to replace as many injured players as possible which would quickly result in 10-11 lads limping with 'pulled hamstrings' and having to go off!

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 05/02/2015 16:51:51    1690451

No im not suggesting that. Im saying that if a guy is bleeding, use a blood sub. If you need to take another 5 minutes to pop his finger back in for example then do it. It is the same for everyone at the end of the day and everyone wants to see the best players get to play. I don't get this thinking that you force a guy to be subbed the instant the bleeding stops. Use a bit of common sense for gods sake.

TheMaster (Mayo) - Posts: 16187 - 05/02/2015 18:09:02    1690484

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why there would be an issue with there being a finite period of time allowed for treatment and clearing up of a blood injury before if becomes a permanent substitution. The rule was brought in as a health and safety measure and to ensure a team is not unduly punished by being reduced in numbers during the treatment period and should be limited to such. There are several reasons why this would be a satisfactory arrangement:
- All parties would be aware of this so there are no surprises in its implementation
- It would allow a fair amount of time (decided by the authorities with appropriate medical profession input) for the treatment to be applied
- If the injured individual cannot be appropriately patched up in the designated time, it's not unreasonable to assume that it would not be in the best interests of his health and safety to allow him to continue
- Teams already get 6 subs, which is plenty if they are used sensibly. If a coach wishes to use up all his subs before the end of the game then that is his prerogative but it opens up the possibility of a non-blood injury occurring (broken leg etc.) so this is a risk he imposes on himself
- If a player incurs a blood injury and exceeds the time frame for being patched up but also recovers sufficiently at a later point (e.g. if he was injured in the first minute of the game and the bleeding had been staunched by the start of the 2nd half), there is no reason why the coach couldn't bring him back on (at the cost of another sub, of course). There are examples of players being subbed and brought back on (e.g. Peter Canavan in the All-Ireland Final) and indeed instances where players have been brought on as a sub and subsequently replaced themselves (e.g. Alan Brogan v Mayo in 2012).
- This would remove the facility to circumvent the original intention of the blood-sub rule and ensure a level playing field for all competitors

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 567 - 05/02/2015 18:10:12    1690485

Is it true that if all subs are used you can still make a blood sub using one of the players already taken off?My tuppence worth is they should close the loop holes, it's just managers trying to be clever

lillyboy (Kildare) - Posts: 429 - 05/02/2015 19:40:02    1690522