[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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 point you are missing is the language puts responsibility on us from others if we do not notice something or not. We already did not allow players to play if they were hurt for a play, but not say this is the reason they do not play longer and give us a note to prove they can play unless they were knocked unconscious. Concussions (as I have said before) are not that easily diagnosed. And these descriptions that they give are not the only signs of a concussion. So if a player has trouble seeing and we are never told that by the player, we might not know. And please if you have been officiating long enough you should know that people that are totally ignorant of rules, claim we are responsible or incompetent of our duties. This policy puts a bull-eye on the officials.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I am not just worried about what the NF thinks, I am worried about what the courts might say or not say. And the only way you can prove that is a court case.

Maybe you are not aware, but there have been officials that have had to take depositions for civil lawsuits because a kid was paralyzed in a football game. That does not mean the official got sued, but because of language or procedures of a company, anyone that was in the area or a witness to actions of the medical people involved. And if there is language that puts more responsibility for us to prevent a player to play, we now can be held responsible by a lawyer.


I have given this example before and since the 20th year anniversary of the death of Hank Gathers this must be mentioned. When Hank Gathers died on a basketball court in California years ago, the family or the lawyers sued every person in the building that had something to do with helping or did not help but had training to do so. In other words there were doctors that got sued that were just watching the game because they could have done something. Now that does not mean they lost court cases, but they had to defend themselves in court which we have said costs money.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I did not say we did not try to figure out if a player can compete. I said that we do not diagnose an injury. There is a difference between seeing a player limping or not being able to get up because there arm hurts. It is quite another thing to determine if that reason is a concussion.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Not true if you read the press release correctly. We have to get approval (meaning the officials) in order to allow a player to play if they have a concussion. That means we have to have them either tell us they are OK or we need something in writing. And the rule about the unconscious player made it clear that an MO/DO were the only ones that could give that authorization. This press release does not specify who is allowed to give that kind of authorization. Maybe it will when the rules come out, but right not that is not the case.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I can speak for my personal experience. I had a hamstring tear a few years back and I was told three different things depending on who the medical professional was. Now I am talking about an orthopedic issue, not a head injury issue, which has a different set of circumstances and expertise. I just feel we should not be in the business to help decide a player should or should not play and clearly who the medical personnel need to be defined. And I hope if it is not defined my state will make that very clear to cover this issue up for the officials. But please do not tell me these are not concerns because you think you understand what they are saying. You are about the only person that has talked about this that seems to completely understand what they are saying. Everyone else has some concerns, some more than others, but concerns none the less.

Peace