Diabetic Seizure, Return to game?

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

[/B]

Mark,I would bet Larks' left one that if you sent a play to the Fed detailing a sub on the bench being knocked unconscious,they would tell you not to let that sub play unless a doctor OK'd it.That's the spirit and intent of the rule,i.e.player safety. [/B][/QUOTE]

So now Larks is gonna be running around the court without a left ear?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I consider my concern for a player's well being second to none. But, in the posted play, the officials do NOT have the authority to over rule a parent's decision (no matter how misbegotten it is).

No? But isn't there responsibility that remains?


I know that my position is not a favorite position, but in this case we legally have no standing in the play.

Are you an attorney, or are you saying within the rule book there is no standing...?

mick

[Larks]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Mark,I would bet Larks' left one that if you sent a play to the Fed detailing a sub on the bench being knocked unconscious,they would tell you not to let that sub play unless a doctor OK'd it.That's the spirit and intent of the rule,i.e.player safety.

Hey!!

JR...Good point....except, please keep my "left one" out of betting considerations. I do have a nice pair of shoes you can bet on for puking rights though.

Larks

[Mark Dexter]

If JR were confident, he would have bet his own left ear. Or whatever he was betting.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
If JR were confident, he would have bet his own left ear. Or whatever he was betting.

Mark,I'm confident,but I'm not dumb.Why take a chance?Ol' Larks started this,so let him take the risk.That way it's no skin off my....:

[daves]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I will bow to the good doctor's medical information concerning diabetics and unconsciousness. But in the play posted, the diabetic athlete was not a player at the time of the seizure. NFHS R3-S1-A1 defines that there a team consists of five players, one of whom is the captain. NFHS R4-S34-A1 defines players as the five team members who legally on the court at any given time. NFHS R4-S34-A3 defines when a substitue becomes a player and when a player becomes a substitute.

Therefore, NFHS R2-S8-A5 (unconscious player rule) does not apply here, and I would seriously advise not trying to invoke NFHS R2-S3 (elastic clause rule) to this case.

I share the doctor's concern about letting this child playing in the game but we has officials do not have the authority to deny him entry into the game.

I heartily disagree with your assessment of this situation. I think you are getting hung up on a semantical and legalistic interpretation of the word 'player'. If we don't have the official authority to keep a player in a situation like this from playing, we are ethically bound to do so. In the officials manual there is a code of ethics. The last 2 points in this code state, "Officials shall, while enforcing the rules of play, remain aware of the inherent risk of injury that competition poses to student-athletes. Where appropriate, they shall inform event management of conditions of situations that appear unreasonably hazardous. Officials shall take reasonable steps to educate themselves in the recognition of emergency conditions that might arise during the course of competition."

As officials, we not only enforce the rules of the game but we have ethical obligations as well. You cannot do one to the exclusion of the other.

[Edited by daves on Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:34 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I will bow to the good doctor's medical information concerning diabetics and unconsciousness. But in the play posted, the diabetic athlete was not a player at the time of the seizure. NFHS R3-S1-A1 defines that there a team consists of five players, one of whom is the captain. NFHS R4-S34-A1 defines players as the five team members who legally on the court at any given time. NFHS R4-S34-A3 defines when a substitue becomes a player and when a player becomes a substitute.

Therefore, NFHS R2-S8-A5 (unconscious player rule) does not apply here, and I would seriously advise not trying to invoke NFHS R2-S3 (elastic clause rule) to this case.

I share the doctor's concern about letting this child playing in the game but we has officials do not have the authority to deny him entry into the game.

Mark, there's a time to use the rule book to the letter and there's a time to use common sense. You are being entirely too legalistic in your approach to this problem. While the rule book may say "player" I'm quite sure it is not the intent of the NFHS to allow a substitute who became unconscious while sitting on the bench to come into the the game. I don't believe you have much of a defense when the boys' parent sue you.

But if you want to be legalistic, I'll give you a different interpretation of the rule. You're being too narow minded in your interpretation. The rule doesn't say that he has to become unconscious while in the game. It says that he can't return to the game if he's been unconscious.

3-3-7
A player who has been determined apparently unconscious shall not return to play in the game without written authorization from a physician.

My Interpretation
If he comes into the game, he is now a player. It has been determined that he was previously unconscious. He is not returning to this game without written consent.

I bet that interpretation will work for everyone else.

For once, use some common sense and interpret the rule sensibly, not legalistically, the way it was meant to be interpreted.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Mark,I would bet Larks' left one that if you sent a play to the Fed detailing a sub on the bench being knocked unconscious,they would tell you not to let that sub play unless a doctor OK'd it.That's the spirit and intent of the rule,i.e.player safety.

I agreeing with you, but only because the NFHS would probably not read the rules before making a ruling. I know that is a harsh statement to make but that it is what I feel in my old bones. But I still stand my original ruling.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by mick

mick

No I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but by rule we have no say in the matter, and I would venture to say that if a parent were to be agressive enough to hire a lawyer, the official would lose.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by daves

I heartily disagree with your assessment of this situation. I think you are getting hung up on a semantical and legalistic interpretation of the word 'player'. If we don't have the official authority to keep a player in a situation like this from playing, we are ethically bound to do so. In the officials manual there is a code of ethics. The last 2 points in this code state, "Officials shall, while enforcing the rules of play, remain aware of the inherent risk of injury that competition poses to student-athletes. Where appropriate, they shall inform event management of conditions of situations that appear unreasonably hazardous. Officials shall take reasonable steps to educate themselves in the recognition of emergency conditions that might arise during the course of competition."

As officials, we not only enforce the rules of the game but we have ethical obligations as well. You cannot do one to the exclusion of the other.

[Edited by daves on Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:34 PM]

I agree with you on what it says in the officials manual, but the conditions that occured in the original posting is outside the officials jurisdiction. I have declared two players unconcious: once in a girls' varsity basketball game and once in a boys' varsity soccer game. Neither coach was happy, especially the soccer player's coach and parents. But we sometimes we just do not have the authority do be king for a day. We have to pick our battles and this is not one of the battles that we as officals should be fighting (I mean taking actions per the original posting).

Now trying to get the rule changed, that is another matter and I would have no trouble supporting a change in the rules to have it apply to substitutes.

[daves]

I agree with you on what it says in the officials manual, but the conditions that occured in the original posting is outside the officials jurisdiction. I have declared two players unconcious: once in a girls' varsity basketball game and once in a boys' varsity soccer game. Neither coach was happy, especially the soccer player's coach and parents. But we sometimes we just do not have the authority do be king for a day. We have to pick our battles and this is not one of the battles that we as officals should be fighting (I mean taking actions per the original posting).

I still totally disagree with what you are saying here. I don't consider protecting a player is being "king for a day". I think it is much more likely for an official to get into trouble for not protecting a player than for making a call that in one person's opinion is beyond an official's jurisdiction.

In prior posts you have stated that you don't think that falls under the elastic clause. I don't have my rule book handy so I can't quote chapter and verse. Are you talking about the rule that says that the referee may make a decision not covered in the rules? If so, why would this not be covered under that clause? If it's because you think that player unconsciousness is already covered in the rules, then let me submit this. Using your own rationale, a person on the bench is not a player, so non player unconsciousness is not covered in the rules. Therefore it would fall under the elastic clause.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I agreeing with you, but only because the NFHS would probably not read the rules before making a ruling. I know that is a harsh statement to make but that it is what I feel in my old bones. But I still stand my original ruling. [/B]

Mark,let's say you're watching a game where one of your two sons is playing.Your son is sitting on the bench when he is definitely knocked unconscious by the elbow of a player trying to save a ball from going OOB.When he comes to,his coach immediately subs him into the game.The officials allow the substitution.What is your reaction,if any,as a parent?

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I agreeing with you, but only because the NFHS would probably not read the rules before making a ruling. I know that is a harsh statement to make but that it is what I feel in my old bones. But I still stand my original ruling.

Mark,

What is Hank's opionion on this? By NFHS decree rule interpretations are supposed to be set by the state. Whatever way your state interprets the rule, is how you should enforce it. I am guessing they wise men (and woman) here in Columbus would want us to take a more liberal interpretation of the rule.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Mark,let's say you're watching a game where one of your two sons is playing.Your son is sitting on the bench when he is definitely knocked unconscious by the elbow of a player trying to save a ball from going OOB.When he comes to,his coach immediately subs him into the game.The officials allow the substitution.What is your reaction,if any,as a parent? [/B]

If my son were knocked unconscious as you just described, he would not even be on the bench, therefore the coach would not have the opportunity to consider subbing him into the game. But that is not the point in this case. In the posted play, the unconscious athlete was not a player in the game at the time. The parent made a decision to let his child play after that.

But another question has not been raised in this matter and I hope that refdoc can answer it for us. Two years ago our 11 yr old suffered a minor concussion while shooting hoops with his cousin. He never lost consciousness in the sense that he was in a coma for any time, but about 15 minutes after the incident and while holding an ice pack to his head he asked me how he had hurt his head. He was suffering from short term memory loss and we took him to the hospital immediately for treament. He was not allowed any type of physical sports activity that might incure contact. That meant swim practice was okay but not racing dives and he could do fielding drills only at baseball practice. When a diabetic comes out of his unconscious state after a seizure at the same risk as a player who has just come out of an unconscious state because of being hit in the head? In other words is his brain at more risk of injury from a diabetic seizure as opposed to from being hit in the head?

[Larks]

(original posting).

Now trying to get the rule changed, that is another matter and I would have no trouble supporting a change in the rules to have it apply to substitutes. [/QUOTE]

MTD: What is the process?