I wasn't able to find the link at the bottom of the quiz page to report an incorrect answer, so here goes!

In Daily Email Quiz on August 3, 2011,
Question 4 Sport: AFL Rules: AFL Rules: Know the Laws of AFL

When does a player have to leave the ground under a 'blood rule'?

If a player becomes sunburnt
If the player is not actively bleeding
If the player is actively bleeding
If the player has had blood deliberately smeared on them

The answer given as correct was : If the player is actively bleeding

Three of the answers are correct, the only one being incorrect is : If a player becomes sunburnt

Thanks
Caroline

Knowing nothing of this game however in checking the quiz from which this question comes...

Know the Laws of AFL
Created by skturner

Fun Trivia : Quizzes : AFL Rules

It is Question 8 which you think is wrong, however 93% of people taking this quiz have got the question correct which, if it was the wrong answer, would not have happened.

"The Blood rule is a rule used in many sports that states that an athlete that receives an open wound, is bleeding, or who has blood on them or their clothes, must immediately leave the playing area to receive medical attention"

So if a player is NOT actively bleeding, or if someone smeared blood on them, they would not have to leave the game. Perhaps the one who did the smearing would be ejected from the game, but the player would not. If there is no open wound, and therefore no need for medical attention, they would not need to be ejected from the game.

However, I can see how one would think that having blood deliberately smeared on them would cause them to be ejected: since the rule states that they should be removed if there is blood on their clothing, but since this blood is not from an open wound, there is no need for them to be treated medically.

I hope that made sense.

I've just checked the Rules of AFL. No, really I have. Salami is incorrect to the extent that under AFL rules, having blood on clothing is not in itself a reason for the player to leave the field. We are talking Australians here, Salami, not normal people, and Aussie sports are full on contact sports with no padding. I'm not going to tell you what those of us in Rugby-playing nations think of padding but AFL despises it just as much.

The rules are quite clear. Active bleeding - the player goes off the pitch.

Blood on player or clothing that isn't caused by current active bleeding - player can stay on the pitch but get a change of clothing as soon as possible.

The rules don't mention sunburn at all. I imagine the very idea would give a few AFL players heart failure, lol.

Pedantic aren't I?

So Flopsy, the question is correct though, right? That's really the important part.

Yes, the answer to that question is correct as given.

Unless there's an Aussie hardman out there who wants to differ. In which case I'll just chant "go Jonny, go Jonny" at them until they beg me to stop.

Not quite THAT clear, Flopsy. The Official Laws are just a bit vague, and I quote-

22.1 THE MEANING OF ACTIVE BLEEDING
In this Law 22, the term “Active Bleeding” means the existence of an injury or wound, which continues to bleed. Active Bleeding does not include minor bleeding from a graze or scratch, which has abated and can be readily removed from a Player or any part of his uniform.
-----
22.3.1 Role of Umpire
Where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is Actively Bleeding, the field Umpire must stop play at the first available opportunity:
(a) direct the Player concerned to immediately leave the playing Surface; and
(b) subject to Law 22.3.3, wait a reasonable period to allow the replacement Player to take up position before recommencing play; and recommence play.
22.3.2 Player to Follow Directions of Field Umpire
Where a Player is directed by a field Umpire to leave the Playing Surface because he or she is Actively Bleeding, the Player must leave the Playing Surface immediately through the Interchange Area.
The Player must not re-enter the Playing Surface or take any further
part in any Match until and unless:
(a) the cause of such bleeding has been abated;
(b) the injury is securely bound to ensure that all blood is contained;
(c) any blood-stained article of uniform has been removed and replaced; and
(d) any blood on any part of the Player’s body has been thoroughly cleansed and removed.
------
22.4 Procedure When Player Not Actively Bleeding
Where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player is not Actively Bleeding, but the Player has blood on any part of his body or uniform, the following will apply:
(a) at the first available opportunity, the field Umpire must signal and direct the Player to obtain treatment. After the signal is given, play will continue;
(b) the Player may remain on the Playing Surface after the signal is given by the field Umpire, but must at the earliest opportunity:
(i) in the case of blood being on any part of his uniform, have the piece of uniform removed and replaced; and/or
(ii) in the case of blood being on any part of his body, have the blood removed and the cause of any bleeding (if any) treated and covered so that all blood is contained;
(c) if after receiving treatment, the field Umpire is of the opinion that blood is still appearing on any part of the Player’s body or uniform, the Player is deemed to be Actively Bleeding and Law 22.3 will apply.
-------
22.8 Deliberate Smearing of Blood
Regardless of any other provision in these Laws, if a Player intentionally smears or otherwise causes blood to be placed on another Player’s body or uniform, the field Umpire must immediately stop play and allow that Player such time as is necessary to have the blood removed or item of uniform removed and replaced.
-------

This info from AFL.com.au.



Sunburn is not really a problem- the Laws were written by people from Melbourne, where the sun only comes out about three days a year.

Didn't he retire quite a few years ago?

So Greg, is the correction note valid and 93% of people taking the quiz getting it wrong but marked correct?

The CN is quite valid, but I can also understand the 93% correct answer. As a Sports Editor, it is up to me to straighten it out, but I might need to confer with my colleagues.

I played Aussie Rules when I was quite a bit younger, but there was no such thing as a Blood Rule back then.

Those are the rules I read. I thought they were perfectly clear. Of course, I didn't have to read them whilst hanging upside down from the bottom of the world.



Sadly for you, no.

Although it's good news for Tizzabelle, she can get more use out of the voodoo doll she made of him.

The CN is not really valid. There are not three correct reasons listed why a player must leave the field under the blood rule. One of the claimed valid reasons is 'if the player is not actively bleeding'. At the start of the match, barring incidents in the tunnel, I would expect most of the players not to be actively bleeding.

I think it is more a question of interpretation by the umpires. If they see blood on a player (or his clothes), they would stop the game and remove him from the field. Whether the blood is his or not, or whether it had been smeared by another player, would be immaterial.

I will bold the appropriate bits of the Laws above that I think are relevant, but I am still open to any other inputs.

I have a friend who umpires, but I won't see him for a couple of days. I'll post back here then with my findings.

Thanks, Looney!

As a rugby union referee I would tentatively add that referee/umpire discretion would take precedence and that is what makes this question/correction contentious. In rugby union it is clear (for once!) that a player should not play when:

4.4 Banned Items of Clothing

(a) A player must not wear any item that is contaminated by blood.

However, as long as the bleeding is not "active" and at the discretion of the referee, a player will usually continue with a bit of blood on their clothing.

Whether this clothing law exists in Aussie Rules I have no idea but this is just meant to highlight the interpretive nature of sports laws.

I think the question has been answered correctly 93% of the time due to the answer chosen by the quiz author being the *most correct* answer rather than others being necessarily wrong.

Sorry if this has been answered, but according to the original poster, two of the correct answers are
If the player is not actively bleeding
If the player is actively bleeding

Those are complete opposites, so how can they both be true? And does that mean everyone can leave the ground under a 'blood rule' since they must fall under one of these two conditions?

Perhaps the answer "If the player is not actively bleeding" is a bit ambiguous as I have to admit to inferring from it the idea of "passive" bleeding - ie, there is blood on the skin but nothing new is emerging from the wound. Maybe this ambiguity is what is causing the problem.

With a 93% correct answer rate, I don't see that there is a problem...

Sue

The percentage of people answering one way or another has no bearing on the validity or the correctness of the answer. At one time 100% said the world was flat. That didn't make it so.

There is an angle of this situation which hasn't been addressed, that being that original author and the CN submitter are both correct. Sports rules change every year. They have highly paid committees that make changes each year. When the question was written, maybe the blood rule only addressed active bleeding. Now it seems the regulation has been expanded to not only cover active bleeding but to address the issue of wet blood on the field, players and their uniforms. Maybe the question is outdated?
I think the intention of the response "If a player is not actively bleeding" is meant to imply that blood is visible but no new drops are being created, not to mean that no bleeding at all is evident. A possible correction might be to change the sunburnt reply to "All of the above are possible reasons when any blood is noticed"

I still have it and 14 more! We was robbed that night in Sydney and we're getting Old Bill back. (Side note.. I wish I was as confident as my typing would suggest.) The Wallabies were recently beaten by Samoa if I'm not mistaken so I'm not holding out many hopes for Bill to come back here. Our rugby trophy cupboard is bare. But! An Aussie has won the Tour de France. Sacre bleu! Now if only we could win the US Masters. We came so close this year...

I talked to my umpire friend this morning on the phone. It's a good thing I was able to refer to the rules posted above so I could see the exact wording to which he referred.

The AFL 'blood rule' has always covered more than just blood actively spurting out of a wound. The question is not incorrect, but is poorly presented. Part of the problem is the use of technical jargon - 'sent from the ground' and 'active bleeding' both have very precise meanings. 'Active bleeding' will mean that the player must immediately leave the field of play (although they can stay on the sidelines for treatment, and return at the next interchange opportunity). Blood on the body or uniform must also be addressed, but it may not be necessary for the player to leave the field of play, if they only have to have a rag thrown to them so they can clean themselves off, or can change their jumper when a runner brings one to them on the field.

So three of the answers given do indeed invoke the 'blood rule', but only active bleeding requires that the player leave the field. (They would rarely leave the ground, as that is usually understood to include the player change rooms, where they might be going for treatment, and certainly includes the sidelines where treatment of minor bleeding would occur.)

Thanks, Looney.

The way I read it now is that the original question is basically correct.

.

The Interesting Information from the quiz reads-
-which supports the question well. (The author has not been on FT for quite some time, so cannot be asked to put his case.)

As L-T has pointed out, the ambiguity seems to be with the phrase "leave the ground". For a smear or a non-active wound, leaving the field would not often be necessary- these thing would be attended to, on field, by a runner with a wet towel.

I would leave it as it is.

Actually, I don't like the extra information, which I hadn't seen before. It suggests that blood rule = leave field, which is not true. 'In the case of active bleeding' rather than 'a blood rule' would remove that ambiguity. The information shown suggests that all blood rule issues require that the player leave the field, which is not correct. And it should probably go on to explain why the other answers are incorrect: Blood on the body or uniform that does not involve active bleeding must also be removed, but may not require that the player leave the field. Sunburn is rarely an issue, and certainly does not require that a player leave the field.

I added the bolded bits to the Info field. Hopefully it covers all bases.