[ajmc]

"We are not going to agree on this either way. My point is if lawyers and medical professionals that happened to be officials are showing concern, I think that is a reason to be concerned. And when I consider what kind of interaction I have or do not have with players, I am even more concerned when I know I rarely know in a football situation why a player is hurt or down on the ground. And concussions often do not involve a player being carried off the field." [/I][/B]

Nobody is aksing you to know why a player is hurt, or to know the extent of his injury. However, IF YOU DO SEE something that concerns you in the areas highlighted, all you do is send the player off for further evaluation. This has been a standard response for generations. NF: 3-5-10 currently doesn't require you to know why a player is hurt, or how serious his injury might be, only that if you think (apparent) injury exists, you send him out for evaluation. What's changed?

"The only thing I have looked for is to see if players are hurt. Then I allow players to be helped by the team. I do not look to see why the player is hurt. And I have never had to rule on a player being unconscious. And as said before a head injury is not always clearly seen. "

If you can't see something, and the player doesn't tell you how he may be suffering, how could you possibly know there was cause for concern? I don't think they will expect us to read minds.

"This is not that situation. This is a new rule or editorial change that puts officials to recognize something we did not have to recognize before. I have no problem ruling on an unconscious player that is rather easy. But to know a player is dizzy as they are being helped off the field is another issue when I have not had a conversation with that player. There is a reason when a player is hurt they go out to see what is wrong and it takes sometimes several minutes to determine. All we have is a spot check that is not enough in my opinion.Peace"

I'm sorry, it may be a geographical difference, but most officials I've worked with routinely observe players to make sure they at least appear fit to compete. If not, a closer look, a question or two can identify when all the lights aren't lit, and if that's the case the player needs to be sent out, and officials have been doing that for years.

This revision seems like a simple calling special attention to the danger of concussions, which most officials have been very much aware of for years and have been trying our best to minimize problems.

When an official delivers a player to the sideline for medical evaluation, his responsibility is OVER. It's then the responsibility of the "appropriate health care professional" to deal with him and determine whether he's fit to participate. Schools will bear the responsibility that the health care professional they assign is "appropriate", and I suspect they will have advice in that area and take that responsibility very seriously.

Given the process established, field officials should understand that a player returning, after being sent for evaluation, has been certified as fit to participate. In some rare instance, should a player certified as fit to participate stagger, stumble or otherwise seem incoherent or complain of headache or dizziness, a smart officials might send him right back out for further evaluation. That should be a rare exception and likely not happen at any H.S. level.

However NFHS Rules govern a lot more football than those played under the jurisdiction of local School Systems, and the same quality of "appropriate health care professional" may not be as available. Again, the "smart official" may consider that and be even more cautions about players re-entering a game after being referred for evaluation in non School System games .

I have always understood the proper reaction to a player, who there is any doubt about his ability to function at 100% medical readiness is, "When in doubt, send him out" for evaluation, which has been in effect, and worked reasonably well, for generations.