2010-11 NFHS Rule Changes

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's an interesting editorial change. So on a free throw the ball can be at the disposal of the thrower but not be live. So if B2 shoots an elbow to the ribs of A2 before we start our count it would be a Technical instead of a personal foul. Same on throw-ins.

I don't think this represents a change. We're already supposed to start the count when it's at the thrower's disposal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

No, of course not. You will be expected to research it yourself. And if you don't, you can expect a lawsuit when you let a concussed individual continue to play. Let's hope the NFHS and state association insurance covers us.

I imagine the level of training you receive will likely depend upon your state. Here's the NFHS Parents' Guide to Sports Concussions. Additionally, while I haven't read the basketball rule yet, the rule books that already have this change spell out what to look for (loss of consciousness, headache, dizziness, confusion, or balance problems). They should add nausea and vomiting to that list.

This is change that is making it's way into all the NFHS rule books. I think it's a good change. I've got to believe most people will know if a kid took a blow to the head on the basketball floor and later has trouble walking or throws up. I'm a little worried about football, since hard contact occurs so often in that game and it's more difficult to see what's going on under a helmet and behind a face mask.

For the record the NF clarified the responsibly of the officials on this in football. In other words, if the player is back in the game from when we take them out of the game, it is assumed they have been reviewed by medical personnel. And in basketball it would be a lot easier to determine if a kid had some issues with a head injury as there is no helmet and there are fewer players on a team.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's an interesting editorial change. So on a free throw the ball can be at the disposal of the thrower but not be live. So if B2 shoots an elbow to the ribs of A2 before we start our count it would be a Technical instead of a personal foul. Same on throw-ins.

"At disposal", "live ball" and "count" all start at the same time. If you have one, you have them all. If you don't have one, you don't have any.

The only "change" here is for those who didn't understand the above concept.

[CLH]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"At disposal", "live ball" and "count" all start at the same time. If you have one, you have them all. If you don't have one, you don't have any.

The only "change" here is for those who didn't understand the above concept.

This clarification came out to all NCAA-W officials last year, clarifying when exactly the ball was "at the disposal" for a thrower in. It was something we already knew, but of course, something crazy happened so the NCAA put out a clarification on it and since Mary Struckoff is a big chiefess on both sides, it trickled down to the high school game.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For the record the NF clarified the responsibly of the officials on this in football. In other words, if the player is back in the game from when we take them out of the game, it is assumed they have been reviewed by medical personnel. And in basketball it would be a lot easier to determine if a kid had some issues with a head injury as there is no helmet and there are fewer players on a team.

Peace

Here are the problems as I see them:1. A player hits the floor hard and takes awhile getting up and leaves the game. The player checks in at the table to return to the game but the officials don't let the player back into the game b/c they feel he/she is "concussed" (if that is a word, it is a cool one) The team with said player loses b/c their star is unable to return to the game b/c of the medical opinion of someone who is not trained to give a medical opinion. 2. Players collide with each other, but there is no apparent concussion. The player leaves the game, and when they return show "no signs symptoms etc" of concussion and finish the game. After the game, the player experiences headaches, nausea and vertigo and then is rushed to the hospital where he is found to have a severe concussion.
Again, very few if any officials are qualified to notice these things. How many medical/health things do we leave in the hands of the trainers/doctors yet when it comes to concussions WE have to make a determination? Can you imagine an official telling a player they can't wear that knee brace b/c that official doesn't think there really IS a knee problem? I will be asking several questions at our state meeting and if the season started today, probably not let ANY player who hit the floor hard and left the game come back in. As the saying goes "Better safe than sued!!"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"At disposal", "live ball" and "count" all start at the same time. If you have one, you have them all. If you don't have one, you don't have any.

That's what I always thought.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The only "change" here is for those who didn't understand the above concept.

I thought maybe the change was put in for cowards.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Here are the problems as I see them:1. A player hits the floor hard and takes awhile getting up and leaves the game. The player checks in at the table to return to the game but the officials don't let the player back into the game b/c they feel he/she is "concussed" (if that is a word, it is a cool one) The team with said player loses b/c their star is unable to return to the game b/c of the medical opinion of someone who is not trained to give a medical opinion. 2. Players collide with each other, but there is no apparent concussion. The player leaves the game, and when they return show "no signs symptoms etc" of concussion and finish the game. After the game, the player experiences headaches, nausea and vertigo and then is rushed to the hospital where he is found to have a severe concussion.
Again, very few if any officials are qualified to notice these things. How many medical/health things do we leave in the hands of the trainers/doctors yet when it comes to concussions WE have to make a determination? Can you imagine an official telling a player they can't wear that knee brace b/c that official doesn't think there really IS a knee problem? I will be asking several questions at our state meeting and if the season started today, probably not let ANY player who hit the floor hard and left the game come back in. As the saying goes "Better safe than sued!!"

I would agree, but the clarification in football (where this is much more of a realistic concern) was that all we do is send them off. After that, we are not involved. So if a player comes back in, it is assumed that they have been checked out. The only issue is if the player is deemed to be unconscious as normal. Your state or any state can take a harder line on this and require more documentation, but as it stands from football, this will be really on the coaches. The wording that came out is the exact same as other sports so far, but the application was not made very clear. Now it was made clear in football and it appears we really are not involved. We just send off a player we think has a concussion and move on. I agree we are not the best people to determine this, but in basketball it is a lot easier to see a player cannot function. In a sport like football it is very hard and the same kind of hand-eye coordination is not the same or as obvious considering many players in football might not be around the ball.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would agree, but the clarification in football (where this is much more of a realistic concern) was that all we do is send them off. After that, we are not involved. So if a player comes back in, it is assumed that they have been checked out. The only issue is if the player is deemed to be unconscious as normal. Your state or any state can take a harder line on this and require more documentation, but as it stands from football, this will be really on the coaches. The wording that came out is the exact same as other sports so far, but the application was not made very clear. Now it was made clear in football and it appears we really are not involved. We just send off a player we think has a concussion and move on. I agree we are not the best people to determine this, but in basketball it is a lot easier to see a player cannot function. In a sport like football it is very hard and the same kind of hand-eye coordination is not the same or as obvious considering many players in football might not be around the ball.

Peace

I really don't see this as a big problem for officials either. The new wording states that "IF" they are sent off due to possible concussion concerns, they can not come back in unless cleared by medical personnel. I don't think it says anywhere that we have to be medical experts on concussions. But if I see a kid bang his/her head on the floor, get up and stagger around, I'm going to call the coach/trainer in and have them taken out of the game (same as I would have in previous seasons). Now, it's on the coach/school to have someone there to check them out and be the "medical personnel" who allows them back into the game.

[amusedofficial]

I'm not very bright, granted, but I think the begin-the-count clarification is useful. "at the disposal" is linquistically vague, although we alll have a pretty good idea what they mean. But some of us wait a half-chop either until the thrower has full possession or if it's an offensive end line throw-in, may hand the ball, take a step away and start. But then anyone who has split hairs over this has bigger problems than the rules committee can ever solve.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I really don't see this as a big problem for officials either. The new wording states that "IF" they are sent off due to possible concussion concerns, they can not come back in unless cleared by medical personnel. I don't think it says anywhere that we have to be medical experts on concussions. But if I see a kid bang his/her head on the floor, get up and stagger around, I'm going to call the coach/trainer in and have them taken out of the game (same as I would have in previous seasons). Now, it's on the coach/school to have someone there to check them out and be the "medical personnel" who allows them back into the game.

Well the wording did say that we were to identify concussion symptoms. It was not just the fact that we send them off; it was what information we went by to show that they were checked out properly. If a player is knocked unconscious, that player cannot come back in the game without a note from a MD or DO. This policy has no such standard and used a very vague term "Medical Personnel." That could be anyone just by the language. And it required officials verify who that person might have been. The NF clarified this a little more and I think partly was because the language they originally came out with was vague as to how we knew who was examining a player. And honestly, I have no problem sending a kid out that has an issue that is obvious. I do still have a problem with knowing someone has a concussion when so many of the symptoms are not "obvious." Of course it is easy to know what to do if players hit their heads together. But many concussion symptoms are not identified until much later. So if a player at first showed signs of a concussion and then came back in the game, it would be hard to know they were evaluated properly or who actually evaluated the issue. I know trainers that cannot say for certain a player has a concussion until they have been thoroughly examined by a doctor that even specializes in this kind of injury. It appears the NF has clarified their wording and basically puts more responsibility on coaches and schools for this kind of examination where it should be.

Peace

[Kelvin green]

How about we actually get some changes that would improve the game?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Altor

No, of course not. You will be expected to research it yourself. And if you don't, you can expect a lawsuit when you let a concussed individual continue to play.

I still want to see one of these lawsuits when it happens.

Plaintiff: We wish to sue this official for not recognizing my client, a minor child, might have had a concussion.

Judge: Why is the official responsible?

Plaintiff: NFHS rules 2-8-5 and 3-3-8.

Judge: Are you kidding?

Plaintiff: Uh........no?

Judge: The rules you mention have nothing to do with the law. A basketball official is not a doctor. (dammit, Jim) No law that I am aware of would make this defendant liable. Next case.

[Judtech]

JUST - I'll take you on with that line of reasoning.
Your honor, this official by consent and/or contract has agreed with the rules set forth in the NFHS rule book. By passsing the annual NFHS examthis official is "certified" by the national governing body. A body, which I may add, is established to monitor the rules and safety of athletes such as my client across America. As such, it is reasonable to assume that this official accepts, condones and adheres to the rules and policies set forth by the governing body. The rule book clearly states that it is the responsibility for the official to know the sign/symptoms of a concussion. Clearly in my clients case this official was negligent in their duties. Because of this negligence, my client experienced pain and suffering, not to mention the added anguish, pain and uncertainty that this minor's parents suffered.
I cite In Loco Parentis and Duty of Care as reasons this suit should continue.
I would also probably name the NFHS (along with the coach, school, AD, principle, and school district) because they did not give their officials proper instruction in diagnosing concussions!! But that is just me

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

3-5-3: So the list is now: white, black, beige, dominant color of the torso of the uniform, or a school color? This might be the season I stop policing headbands... why not just change it to "all teammates have the same color" and leave it at that?

I agree. Better would be "any single solid color for all team members."

Do we now have to know the official school colors for each competing school? Must we debate with the coaches whether green is one of their school colors?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JUST - I'll take you on with that line of reasoning.
Your honor, this official by consent and/or contract has agreed with the rules set forth in the NFHS rule book. By passsing the annual NFHS examthis official is "certified" by the national governing body. A body, which I may add, is established to monitor the rules and safety of athletes such as my client across America. As such, it is reasonable to assume that this official accepts, condones and adheres to the rules and policies set forth by the governing body.

I think it needs to be made clear that not every state uses the NF tests or considers the same score as passing. So it would be a little flawed to suggest that simply passing a test (in my opinion) from the NF means were are "certified" by the national govening body. For one, I can only work in one state right now and my passing tests do not apply to other states unless I go through their process, which might mean I would have to talk a completely different test.

Originally Posted by Judtech

The rule book clearly states that it is the responsibility for the official to know the sign/symptoms of a concussion. Clearly in my clients case this official was negligent in their duties. Because of this negligence, my client experienced pain and suffering, not to mention the added anguish, pain and uncertainty that this minor's parents suffered.
I cite In Loco Parentis and Duty of Care as reasons this suit should continue.
I would also probably name the NFHS (along with the coach, school, AD, principle, and school district) because they did not give their officials proper instruction in diagnosing concussions!! But that is just me

This is where I completely agree with you if no other language is used. But it appears that other language will be used to clarify our role in this rule as it has been in football as I explained earlier. But I think the language is very slippery and puts more responsibility on us as officials for things we are not trained to do. These issues are ultimately the responsibility of coaches, trainers and parents that deal with these players. Not sure why anyone thinks we can identify something like a concussion when doctors cannot agree on when and concussion has occurred just by only a few of these very narrow symptoms.

Peace