Blood Offence - what can the Referee do?

[JulianC]

It would be interesting to gauge the opinion of colleges from 'over the water' on the following scenario.

A player breaks his nose in a collision and becomes a little "irritated" by the fact.

The opposition bench start to wind him up as he leaves the field.
With his nose bleeding like a waterfall he tries to confront the bench. Unable to do so (restrained by his bench and with the Referee standing in the way) he throws a handful of his blood at the 'Chief Wind Up Merchant,' who in turn becomes a little unhappy by this.

What course of action should (or can) the Referee take?

Regards
Julian Carosi
Referees' Assessor England
www.corshamref.net

[Alberto]

It would be interesting to gauge the opinion of colleges from 'over the water' on the following scenario.

A player breaks his nose in a collision and becomes a little "irritated" by the fact.

The opposition bench start to wind him up as he leaves the field.
With his nose bleeding like a waterfall he tries to confront the bench. Unable to do so (restrained by his bench and with the Referee standing in the way) he throws a handful of his blood at the 'Chief Wind Up Merchant,' who in turn becomes a little unhappy by this.

What course of action should (or can) the Referee take?

Regards
Julian Carosi
Referees' Assessor England
www.corshamref.net

Okay, first question.

He is leaving the field because he is bleeding correct?

Why, when the bench was having a go did not the 4th official or senior AR not put a stop to it? It should not have gotten to the point that he hurled blood at the opposition. That said I would not be inclined to send him off.

If yes, and assuming his blood is not contaminated with Hepatitus C or HIV, a caution would be in order. It really depends on how provoked he was.

Context is everything.

[ProfZodiac]

Hell, that's UC in my book. That could be really, really dangerous. (Not to mention just a bit icky.) The Chief Wind-up Merchant would also have to be considered for a caution, for provoking the bloody man to fling.

[MassachusettsRef]

If yes, and assuming his blood is not contaminated with Hepatitus C or HIV, a caution would be in order. It really depends on how provoked he was.
We don't ignore violent conduct when it's done in retaliation to being provoked, so I don't see how the actions of his opponents could/should
serve to lessen his punishment.

However, I do agree that the 4th or SAR should be proactive enough to prevent something like this from occurring.

Ultimately though, if it did happen, I would equate it with spitting and would have to reach for the red card (though it would be classified as VC, just as spitting used to be included therein).

[Statesman]

Send him off for violent conduct and include the details in the match report.

[nsa]

Hell, that's UC in my book.
PZ, it should be violent conduct.

Alberto asks the right questions regarding preventive measures.

[Jeff from Michigan]

We don't ignore violent conduct when it's done in retaliation to being provoked, so I don't see how the actions of his opponents could/should
serve to lessen his punishment.

However, I do agree that the 4th or SAR should be proactive enough to prevent something like this from occurring.

Ultimately though, if it did happen, I would equate it with spitting and would have to reach for the red card (though it would be classified as VC, just as spitting used to be included therein).


I agree...the analogy should be to spitting: since that was considered "violent conduct" before being peeled off and made a send-off offense in its own right, that's where I'd peg it. (Actually...it would be more "disgusting conduct" than actual violence...but this is as close as we can come).

This being said...I think that I'd really have to see the incident to know how to class it: there would, in my mind, be a difference between "bodily fluids deliberately directed," and "yucky stuff getting all over everybody." So...given the level of provocation...if I could legitimately, and in good conscience, view it as unintentional, I think I'd do so.

In addition...I'd also view the taunting behavior of the other side as utterly inexcusable. Whether or not the collision was a foul, a player with a broken nose would be in considerable pain...and NOBODY should be taunting him. IN addition, if I DID have to send off the injured player for responding to the taunts of his opponents, I suspect that the game would be about to go down the crapper --- particularly if the injured player had NOT been subbed off, and the affected team would not only be infuriated, but also down a player--- and would seriously consider terminating the match.

Now...if the affected team was simply embarrassed by their teammate's outburst, and everyone still wanted to play, there'd be no need to end the game. I would, however, be sure to caution everyone --- and I mean EVERYONE --- whom I could identify as a "taunter." And if the bench-nik who was the "Chief Wind-up Merchant" does ANYTHING in response to the hemmoragic barrage that would remotely justify a SECOND caution, he'd be gone as well: in fact, I'd regard this as the best way to calm everyone down, so that the teams could get back to playing, if I could do it legitimately.

As far as the obligations of the "Fourth Official" or benchside AR are concerned...let's be practical for a moment: most games don't have a fourth official...and if I'm not mistaken (and Julian can correct me if I'm wrong), most English games are lucky to have more than one referee running the game with Club Linesmen. Meanwhile...over here....I wouldn't expect my "senior AR" to be routinely running up the touchline every time a player left the field: I'd expect him to be staying in position. So, while we might be able to prevent the problem in a perfect world, I suspect that this sort of incident would happen rather quickly...catch everyone by surprise...and leave little time for any real preventive action by the officials.

[refmike]

assuming his blood is not contaminated with Hepatitus C or HIV, a caution would be in order. Context is everything.
Really, Alberto, you would wait for a blood analysis before deciding on the level of punishment? That would take longer than a video replay.

In the case of blood, we must assume the worst while hoping for the best.

[Alberto]

Really, Alberto, you would wait for a blood analysis before deciding on the level of punishment? That would take longer than a video replay.

In the case of blood, we must assume the worst while hoping for the best.


Sigh! People do not see the subtlety in my humor. It would clearly take several days to obtain a blood analysis from a lab.

[bluedevils]

Yep, sendoff for Violent Conduct. Last year I was working an amateur game in our state's Tournament of Champions. National Referee in the middle. Foul called, stoppage. Player proceeds to kiss one of the opposing players - I don't remember if it was on the lips or the cheek. I was thinking, 'this is obviously bad, and this guy is gonna be punished. But how is the referee going to classify this behavior?' He sent off the player for violent conduct, which I guess seems to be the correct interpretation.

It's amazing how many plausible scenarios exist, and the only way many of us think about them is through hearing others' experiences on this board. Until that game last year, I'd never considered what to do if one player kissed an opponent. And until reading this blood-hurling thread, I'd never considered what to do if it happened in a game I was refereeing.

[Tame Lion]

A player breaks his nose in a collision and becomes a little "irritated" by the fact.

The opposition bench start to wind him up as he leaves the field.
With his nose bleeding like a waterfall he tries to confront the bench. Unable to do so (restrained by his bench and with the Referee standing in the way) he throws a handful of his blood at the 'Chief Wind Up Merchant,' who in turn becomes a little unhappy by this.

What course of action should (or can) the Referee take?
This is really a yahaddabethere question.

Presuming that "throws" means deliberate, how close did the blood come to anyone? If it hit or came close, it is VC. If not close at all, then it could be construed as an offensive gesture. It could be construed as USB.

I agree with Jeff that all the "winders" are guilty of misconduct and that any you can identify should be punished -- expel team officials and plastic for the subs, etc. Possible sub offences are: USB (minimum) and offensive language. As each "winding action" can be construed as a separate misconduct, double yellows are possible. The "winders" are more guilty than "broken nose" in my mind since they started it and their actions were continuous over some time so I would find little leniency for them.

[Alberto]

This is really a yahaddabethere question.

Presuming that "throws" means deliberate, how close did the blood come to anyone? If it hit or came close, it is VC. If not close at all, then it could be construed as an offensive gesture. It could be construed as USB.

I agree with Jeff that all the "winders" are guilty of misconduct and that any you can identify should be punished -- expel team officials and plastic for the subs, etc. Possible sub offences are: USB (minimum) and offensive language. As each "winding action" can be construed as a separate misconduct, double yellows are possible. The "winders" are more guilty than "broken nose" in my mind since they started it and their actions were continuous over some time so I would find little leniency for them.


I believe Tame Lion and Jeff from Michigan really get to the heart of the matter with their posts. There are many possible extenuating circumstances as to why the obvious send off for violent conduct may not the best answer for match management purposes. Also, age has a great deal of bearing in how to react to the situation. A clear send off for an adult may not necessarily be the best decision for older youth players. The mere fact that the player may miss splattering blood onto an opponent may not be an easy out since you can send off a player for striking or attempting to strike an opponent. With regard to the spitting analogy, we need to remember the spitting in many countries is an extremely vile and contemptuous action. Not that lobbing blood isn't, but I can't recall this ever happening in a match.

[MidwestRef]

I don't have my NCAA rulebook in front of me, but I believe NCAA rules specifically require an ejection for this type of offense. For my NISOA colleagues, please enlighten the rest of us.

If a player intentionally flicked blood at another player, I'd reach for the red card. For anyone taunting this player, it's a "soft red" in high school (substitution permitted) as explicitly stated in the rules and referee's discretion in USSF. For this type of behavior regarding an injured player, I would have VERY little leniency for the offenders before reaching for my back pocket and the red card.

[whistleblowerusa]

We're not talking just water here. This is blood. Why is the player leaving the field of play? Because the Laws say that a bleeding player must leave the field of play immediately. Why? Because blood diseases are very common and FIFA wants us to protect players and others by having the wound treated and cleaned up immediately.
So, a player throw blood at any other player or person is guilty of violent conduct and should be sent from the field of play.