Ejected From Tournament (Video)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. That's the most insane law ever (ok, maybe it's tied). Expecting officials to be experts on concussions based on an online class is just stupid.

2. Both states may have different protocols, but they both still start at the same point: when the official think the player may have a concussion. In the OP video, there's nothing to indicate that. She didn't hit a hard unprotected wall, she hit the mat. Her hands cushioned the impact. She got right up.

She's still heading to the bench without a timeout.

I don't think its a bad law. It isn't trying to make anyone experts. They just are taking concussions a lot more seriously than ever before. With good reason. We have an online class/test here. It just describes symptoms, talks about what to look for and explains seriousness. It isn't trying to make us a treater. Just have some idea what to look for. Provides information to us they that want us to have..

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

I think you have a great point. I think the subsequent fall into a hard wall after being pushed in the back is enough for a flagrant, followed by disqualification.

I would have done the same in this situation. Who knows what that girl will do next if she isn't tossed now.

If she didn't fall into the wall - is it still worthy of disqualification?

[Hawkeyes]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't think its a bad law. It isn't trying to make anyone experts. They just are taking concussions a lot more seriously than ever before. With good reason. We have an online class/test here. It just describes symptoms, talks about what to look for and explains seriousness. It isn't trying to make us a treater. Just have some idea what to look for. Provides information to us they that want us to have..

Until one of you "misdiagnoses" a concussion and is named in a lawsuit with a line of questioning like: "Did you or did you not watch the online video?"

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. That's the most insane law ever (ok, maybe it's tied). Expecting officials to be experts on concussions based on an online class is just stupid.

2. Both states may have different protocols, but they both still start at the same point: when the official think the player may have a concussion. In the OP video, there's nothing to indicate that. She didn't hit a hard unprotected wall, she hit the mat. Her hands cushioned the impact. She got right up.

She's still heading to the bench without a timeout.

Speaking from the perspective of an Ohio official. The law requiring the Concussion Certificate is not a bad one, because it also applies to all coaches both JrHS/HS and youth. When I am umpiring an ASA (now USA Softball) tournament in Ohio in the summer the law means that the coaches as well as the umpires are put on notice that we all are to put the safety of the player before anything else. The irony of the law is that there is now penalty for officiating/umpiring without the certificate. Only the OhioHSAA takes action against officials that do not have the certificate, and the OhioHSAA gives the officials to take action if they think that the player MAY be exhibiting concussion like symptoms.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

If she didn't fall into the wall - is it still worthy of disqualification?

Not for me.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

Until one of you "misdiagnoses" a concussion and is named in a lawsuit with a line of questioning like: "Did you or did you not watch the online video?"

We're not asked to diagnose anything. Pretty simple here--if a kid has an event and /or he looks the least bit "off" send him out. School must then have him evaluated by certified trainer. If in doubt send them out. Easy.

Referees aren't getting sued every day and when we are we aren't losing. Law actually favors officials in liability area.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not for me.

I might have because she made a point to get close enough to bend elbows and gave her pretty good 2 handed shove while in the air. Total non basketball play that could cause big damage, wall or no wall.

[packersowner]

I don't care about the proximity of the wall or even how hard she was shoved, I care about the exposure of the offensive player in this situation.

She had no ability to absorb the content, she was in a compromised position, and in all likelihood didn't know she was about to get shoved from behind. These add up to a flagrant for me.

I had a similar situation a few weeks ago, smaller girl goes to foul a larger heavier set girl at the end of a game. The defender came and two hand shoved the other girl, but in this case the offensive player knew it was coming, absorbed it and even turned into the contact to avoid it. I called an intentional.

[Moosie74]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

As an official, it's not our job to diagnose any sort of injury unless there are visible symptoms. She got up almost right away and didn't show any signs of trauma. I'm not sure the concussion rules apply here.

I would leave the diagnosing to the parents and coaches in this situation.

I never once said anything about a concussion. I said she should be checked. Coach is welcome to disagree and put her back in by T/O or re-entry rules.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not for me.

Me either.

As someone else has mentioned -- you can't separate cause and effect from these types of calls. If it's a two handed shove and she doesn't go to the ground at all, I'll go intentional, but flagrant would not fit the situation.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Moosie74

I never once said anything about a concussion. I said she should be checked. Coach is welcome to disagree and put her back in by T/O or re-entry rules.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Not here. If she's sent off to be checked for a concussion, she's not returning without the approval of an appropriate health care professional.

I think putting the onus on officials is insane. Here we only send them off if they're exhibiting signs / symptoms -- then the health care professional makes the call. As they should.

[Moosie74]

Originally Posted by Rich

Not here. If she's sent off to be checked for a concussion, she's not returning without the approval of an appropriate health care professional.

Concussions I agree.

But running full force could cause other injuries. If you simply say Bob, #10 was the cause of my stopping play, you've said nothing about concussions, a broken finger or anything else.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

Not here. If she's sent off to be checked for a concussion, she's not returning without the approval of an appropriate health care professional.

I think putting the onus on officials is insane. Here we only send them off if they're exhibiting signs / symptoms -- then the health care professional makes the call. As they should.

NY State they are done for the day and need a doctor's note clearing them for when they want to return to play.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by packersowner

I don't care about the proximity of the wall or even how hard she was shoved, I care about the exposure of the offensive player in this situation.

She had no ability to absorb the content, she was in a compromised position, and in all likelihood didn't know she was about to get shoved from behind. These add up to a flagrant for me.

I had a similar situation a few weeks ago, smaller girl goes to foul a larger heavier set girl at the end of a game. The defender came and two hand shoved the other girl, but in this case the offensive player knew it was coming, absorbed it and even turned into the contact to avoid it. I called an intentional.

So you're saying the shove on its own, without more info is worthy of the flagrant? I think the entire action, including the results need to be factored in. What if the shooter lands on her feet? I just don't think I could justify a flagrant in that situation, whereas an intentional foul is easily justifiable.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

NY State they are done for the day and need a doctor's note clearing them for when they want to return to play.

Here we send them out if they are exhibiting signs or symptoms of a concussion, in our opinion.

But whether they can return that day depends on the physician or LAT who examines the player. If that person decides the athlete does not have a concussion and is not exhibiting signs/symptoms and is fit to play, that's all that's required.

If there is no physician or LAT available, the player is done for the day.

If a concussion is diagnosed, the player is done for the day. If a player is exhibiting signs / symptoms to the doctor or LAT, the player is done for the day.

I'm not a doctor or LAT and I'm not the one who should be deciding these things. Even so, I can have a player removed if I'm not satisfied that the player is OK.

---------
WIAA (WI) Policy:

If you suspect a player may have a concussion, that athlete should be immediately removed from play. The injured athlete should be kept out of play until they are cleared to return by an appropriate health care provider. If the appropriate health care provider determines the athlete is not exhibiting the signs/symptoms of a concussion and does not have a concussion, they may return to play.

A physician or LAT may evaluate an athlete for concussion. If they determine that the athlete is not displaying the signs of a concussion or does not have a concussion, the athlete may return to play. If they determine that the athlete is displaying the signs of a concussion or does in fact have a concussion, the athlete may not return to play (with or without a note) that day.

WIAA Sports Medical Advisory Council identifies a physician and licensed athletic trainer (LAT) under the direct supervision of a physician as an appropriate health care professional for determining return to play other than the same day.