[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having a concussion as opposed to having heat stroke or being dehydrated or two complete different situations and set of circumstances and require different documentation now. And if you do not understand that distinction and why that is a concern, well I really do not know what to tell you.



I can see dizzy and out of balance a little, but again those could be for other medical issues. Those are not just automatically because of a concussion.



Easily, if you think one is for dehydration and it is really a concussion. You let the player come back in thinking they had an issue that was not related to a concussion and someone puts them back into the game. Someone just might say "you" were negligent and did not do your job. Or if you allowed a player to come back in the game because a trainer told you they were OK (if the rule is not specifically defined). Someone can and will say you were not doing your job and when they find out that the concussion helped result in something serious (and they can lead to death); you might be one of the many people they come looking for to pay for someone's loss. That in my opinion should not be the role of an official, especially those that are not doctors or nurses or even athletic trainers by trade.

No one is saying we are concerned that we will not send off a player. We are concerned that we might think a players is hurt for another reason and then found out they had a concussion. Or even better, we send a player off for what we believe to be a concussion, then it clearly is not after a thorough examination and we somehow get blamed for it being the wrong player and something affecting the outcome. Sorry, I see a lot of problems with this language. It is one thing to send a player off for a play or two, it is quite another to diagnose an injury that may or may not be present.

Peace

Now you're just being silly. All this nonsense about whether you send a player off because you suspect a potential concussion, rather than a heatstroke is a bright red herring. The simple fact is YOU sent him off because YOU sensed he MAY not be fit to continue for WHATEVER reason, is what counts.

Specifically why you sent him off doesn't matter. THAT you sent him off is what counts, from that point on it's the sole responsibility of the team's designated, "appropriate health-care professional" to determine if there's a problem, what that problem might actually be and to evaluate his fitness to continue participating and determine whether or not he reenters the game.

If they determine there's no problem, wonderful, he comes back in one play later and life goes on. Clearly and appropriately, the Gods of football have decreed this is an area we should err on the side of caution, which when you consider the grand scheme of things that matter, makes a lot of sense. How we may respond to, or even care about, comments regarding whether the outcome of the game might have been affected by your choosing to verify a players personal safety, is entirely up to the individual. Personally, I don't recommend spending a lot of time on it.

Some fool, actually any fool, can say anything fools are inclined to say. Whatever they choose to say really doesn't matter, unless and until YOU choose to pay attention to them. If we choose to fixate on the possibilities of what fools might conjure up as possible problems, we can find all sorts of "problems" in any rule language seeking verbiage that will cover the full imagination of fools, and never reach total protection.

As long as we acknowledge we're not doctors, make no claim to being an "appropriate health-care professional (as associated with our function on the field during a game) or claim or offer medical expertise or attempt to project a diagnosis, we bear no responsibility for medical judgments made, or not made, based on our job performance as game officials.

If you want to get yourself all worked up about, what at this point is absolute and pure speculation and imagination, that's up to you and on you. I'm comfortable waiting until the written rule is published, which I anticipate will include a rational caution to be attentive to the issue of concussion, which has been identified as a problem area.