View Single Post
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 19, 2008, 01:03am
BoomerSooner BoomerSooner is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 561
Send a message via AIM to BoomerSooner
I know I'm late into the discussion, but I agree with the general concept that the rule should be followed to the letter. Loss of consciousness = signed release from MD/DO.

What I don't agree with, however, is some the posters that have implied that any signs, symptoms, or similarities to a head injury require a doctor's release. I understand the concept of better safe than sorry, but just because a kid takes a pitch to the head and takes a second to get up doesn't mean he was unconscious. Just because a kid takes a pitch has a knot on his forehead, doesn't mean there is a loss of consciousness. I'm sorry, but for all the preaching about following the letter of the law, there seem to be alot of posters that want to declare a kid unconscious just to be safe rather than because he was actually unconscious. This is just my interpretation of what others are saying. If we are going to play the better safe than sorry angle then shouldn't we be requiring full neuroloical work-ups including EEG, CT scans, etc? The purpose of the rule is to protect the kids, not the umpires.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush
Reply With Quote