http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/socce...n-they-ran-out-of-clean-shirts-045137282.html The article states that Ayew had blood on his #10 shirt during first half and changed into another #10 shirt. During the second half, the new shirt got bloodstained, and Marseille did not have any other #10, so that forced Marseille to sub Ayew out. Is that from FIFA, ROC, or referee decision? I would have left him play with any unused number, or with a blank (no number) jersey. On a non-referee note: Marseille playing at home. Can't the equipment manager go to one of the stadium stores and buy a jersey?
Interesting. Though I wonder if it might also be that the team thought he couldn't wear a different number. I've seen professional games in which a player changed to either a different number or a blank shirt when a bloody or ripped shirt caused a problem.
Not FIFA. Player numbers are an ROC thing. Some competitions have explicit instructions/parameters for a numberless "blood kit." Either the French League does not cover this or someone (refs or the team) made a mistake.
Serious question. I realize that these rules cam in with the whole AIDS scare, but isn't it time we revisit these rules? The odds of a blood illness/disease being passed from a bit of blood on a jersey is remote. Cover it with a bit of tape would reduce it even more. Does anyone have statistics to show whether this rule is still needed?
It's not just HIV they are concerned about, though you are probably correct about the origins of the rules. Soccer isn't going to lead the way on this and, last I checked, blood and other body fluids are still treated as potentially infectious in lots of environments. Infectious control measures aren't going to be lessened any time soon. The risk may be small, but the consequences are such that it warrants the extreme response.
How about hepatitis? League rules, especially at this level, are usually pretty explicit. Not knowing what they are for Ligue 1, I'm not prepared to comment on whether the crew did the right thing or not.
I realize there are many blood borne diseases. But I was hoping someone would have actual risk numbers. It better be significant if we are going to make a professional team sub or, God forbid, play short if their subs are used.
Let's flip it around. What is the acceptable amount of risk? I think even a minor risk of contracting a serious (i.e., fatal) disease is worth the added caution.
No, it doesn't have to be significant because that what the IFAB says the rule is and the teams agree to the rules by virtue of playing in the game. Who collects and publishes information on which professional players have blood borne pathogens? I think the answer is no one.
So... found some info after a quick search, can't be 100% sure of its accuracy but the multiple sources did have similar numbers. Looks like Hep B is your biggest risk for a needle stick and mucosal transmission. HIV has about a 0.1% pooled risk for mucosal transmission. Doesn't sound high at all, right? What I found interesting was the risk of transmission in a needle stick was "only" 0.2-0.5% for HIV. Not a lot higher than the mucosal risk but who the hell in their right mind would say, "Eh, low risk I'll go ahead and stick myself." Again -- big question around the data, I don't think it's really been researched in sports all that much. The reality is, probably not something to keep you up at night but why not protect against the risk? As referees, we just need to remember to really bend the ROCs on numbers/jerseys when it comes to these situations. No need to make it difficult, just get the player back in the match.
But this is my real concern. There are ways to make the risk almost nil. I think it is a rule that requires common sense, not a simple red line, blood = off. At the professional level (assuming it's just a spot and not the whole shirt), you could tie the blood spot in to a knot or cover it with a pad or tape before making a player sit. College, youth, etc is a different story. But IMHO, enforcing the law in this manner at the professional level is nonsense. Hell, cut it out with scissors if you're really concerned.
I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. If anything the rules that needs changing is the ones that doesn't allow "creative" ways of getting the player acceptable clothing, not the ones that bans the bloody clothing.
I see this as less of an issue with the rule as a local club issue. Why would they not have a spare jersey around? Could they not have a bottle of H2O2 around to rinse the stain? This rule isn't unique to FIFA. Others have seemed to find a way to make this work.
I have dealt with this at the pro level. This isn't the trainer's first rodeo. He or she knows that they may have to decontaminate a bloody shirt and they have the bottle and gloves to do it. Most pro teams, in my experience, also have spare shirts. (What if someone's shirt gets ripped?) If it a small blood stain, they wash it out. If it's a big bloody mess, they replace the shirt. They just tell the 4th that number six is now number 28. No big deal. Frankly, nobody thinks that it's a burden to do this and there's no whining like 'come on, ref, you aren't really going to make us do that, are you?'
But, apparently it is a big deal in Ligue 1 (or someone got the ROC wrong). Wasn't there a situation a few years ago in the CCL when a goal got annulled because the player's number on his shorts didn't match his shirt or something weird like that? I probably have the details way off, but it was something really foolish. Actually, nevermind... I found it: http://www.thecrew.com/news/2010/08/warzycha-ccl-outrage-we-have-move We had a thread on the play at the time. Does anyone recall if the ROC were appropriately followed? (I'm talking specifically about the number issue--obviously the referee erred in waving the player on if the lack of a number was a problem) My point here is that we don't know the ROC in Ligue 1, except for what we have in the original link (which doesn't cite the actual ROC). Different competitions have different ROC. If Ligue 1 doesn't have a blood kit provision (blank number) and the team couldn't make another jersey have the same number and switching numbers is not allowed... well, that's the way it goes. Anyone with common sense would argue it's time to alter the ROC, but oftentimes the people who make the ROC don't have a ton of common sense.
You go do a professional first division match and deliberately not follow something that is explicitly in the ROC and tell me how that works for you.
You draw curious lines on what should be followed and what shouldn't be. If the ROCs are stupid, change them. Until then, don't fault the referee.
@Sport Billy - I kept thinking you'd post something that retracted your previous feelings and that you had realized the errors of your ways. I was way too optimistic. Regarding your non-medical theories on stopping Bloodborne Infections: Can you please find any medical professional that approves of this line of logic? I'll even accept the opinion of an 8-year old who picked "Doctor" for career day at school. Find me anyone. Yes. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/ for starters. You know there is no going back with some of these, right? You can't take two Aspirin and call the doc in the morning. "God forbid"? Really? You understand we're talking about a game? I mean, listen, we're talking about a game, not life, not life, not life, we talking about a game. You seem to be missing the point that we have applied common sense already, and that common sense just so happens to equate to "a simple red line". The common sense is that the player takes care of their bodily fluid without risking any of the other players. You want to tie the blood spot into a knot or cut holes in them? And have EPL players wearing bad half-shirts they borrowed from rap videos in the 80s? Think about what you're saying. So you can't even cite the exact MLS ROC on this, but you think you can assume the French's ROC? The arrogance is astounding. The ROC might be wrong, why? - because Sport Billy thinks we should not inconvenience one player with blood and that we should subsequently risk the other 21 players and 4 officials. Good idea. You seem to be on this rant solely because one team had to make a substitution. Oh, the humanity. Whatever shall we do?
The really stupid thing is that they could have washed the original jersey and had it ready to wear again in a few minutes. I mean, it doesn't have to be dry, just not bloody. I keep a bottle of hydrogen peroxide and water in my team bandage bag for this exact situation.
See, it's not just a game. It is a billion dollar industry. It is many people's lives. It's how the feed their families. I've already said I'd only like to see the change at the professional level. Here is a doctor confirming that HIV dies within moments of air exposure. Thus HIV on a jersey is not a risk. I'd like to see risk factors for Hepatitis I know it lasts longer, but it still takes direct contact with an open wound. If the stain is covered, there cannot be direct contact. But yes, assuming risk factors are indeed low, I'd rather see a player with a hole in his shirt or play with a different number than a team lose millions because they were regulated because their star player was just forced to be subbed out of the last game of the year and they had no subs left.
I see irony in saying that at a professional level this needs to be allowed. At a professional level they can damn well afford more than 2 jerseys..... Just like anything else professional, two is one and one is none. (applies to your whistles, cards, shoes, shirts, etc...)
@Sport Billy I don't think anyone is going to argue with you that if the ROC actually do not permit unlimited jersey changes due to blood, they are woefully misguided and need to be changed. You are wrong though to dismiss the dangers of blood borne pathogens. You are also wrong to fault a referee if he was in fact following the ROC. The best way to get dumb ROCs changed is to enforce them to the letter.