Question on Case Book Situation 2.8.5
 

Under the new revisions for this year in the case book, 2.8.5 states that a player who was removed from the game for exhibiting signs of a concussion may return in the same game once they have been cleared by a health care professional. Where it gets iffy (IMO at least) is that it states that if the player who was removed appears at the scorer's table to reenter the game, the officials shall assume the coach/school followed the appropriate procedure and the player is eligible.

At our association's meeting tonight, we were told the state office says this rule does not apply in CA and a player may never reenter the game if he was removed for concussion like symptoms. Any other states out there that are not adopting this revision? For those states that are, what are your thoughts on it?

It's asking officials to assume an awful lot on the part of a coach. All it would take is one coach bending the rule to get his star player back in the game and all heck would break loose.

That's Using Your Head ...
 

CONCUSSION PROCEDURE REVISED (2-8-5; 3-3-8): Any player who exhibits
signs, symptoms or behaviors consistent with a concussion must be immediately
removed from the game and shall not return to play until cleared by an appropriate
health-care professional. The previous rule directed officials to remove an
athlete from play if “unconscious or apparently unconscious.” The previous rule
also allowed for return to play based on written authorization by a medical doctor.
The new rule requires that any player who exhibits signs, symptoms or
behaviors consistent with a concussion, such as loss of consciousness,
headache, dizziness, confusion or balance problems, shall be immediately
removed from play and shall not return until cleared by an appropriate health-care
professional. Officials, coaches and administrators should be looking for signs of
concussion in all athletes and should immediately remove any suspected concussed
athlete from play and make every effort to ensure a concussed athlete
does not continue to participate.

2.8.5 SITUATION: A1 and B1 hit heads in diving for a loose ball and both
appear injured. However, A1 is immediately removed from the game by the officials
as he/she is exhibiting signs consistent with a concussion. Later in the
game, A1 reports to the scorer’s table to reenter the contest. RULING: The rules
permit A1 to return to the game once he/she has been cleared by an appropriate
health-care professional. The responsibility for obtaining that clearance rests with
the coach/school, and need not be verified by the officials (unless state procedures
require verification). If A1 appears at the scorer’s table to reenter the game,
the officials shall assume the coach/school followed the appropriate return-toplay
procedures and A1 is eligible to participate.

I heard about this from some of the CA guys on the football forum. IMO it's a terrible revision of the rule and will completely undercut what NFHS is trying to accomplish for player safety here.

Officials will be reluctant to send any player off, knowing that the player will be done for the night. So as a result they will have a much higher bar for noticing signs or symptoms of concussion. Too few players will be sent off, and the result will be much like the current rule. And that defeats the purpose of the change.

Moreover, by taking physicians and trainers out of the loop, CA is really putting officials in the position of diagnosing concussions. The NFHS rule is written broadly as a precautionary measure based on observing "signs or symptoms" of concussion and removing players for diagnosis. Responsibility for that diagnosis lies with the person who decides whether the player continues to play, which here in Ohio is an M.D., a D.O., or a certified trainer. Since CA assigns that responsibility to officials -- who lack proper training -- they are setting their officials up for lawsuits (or, as I said, motivating officials not to remove players for concussion).

This change will be bad for players, bad for coaches, bad for officials, bad for the state association, and bad for sports in CA. Just terrible.

We have been told not to worry because all the liability will be put on the coach and their medical staff.

I believe that is a change from what was discussed earlier. If memory serves, originially the onus was on the official to determine if the player was 'healthy' enough to re enter a game. THAT was a huge liability issue for officials. Now the coach and training staff assume to risk and liability if the player re enters the game. As officials we are not as well trained to diagnose concussions as the training/medical staff. Now if the player is at the table to enter the game, as officials we can reasonably assume that this player has been cleared by the TRAINED medical peronsell. (that is not to say you won't get named in a lawsuit. Any member of the bar worth their power tie would put the coach, trainer, AD, Prinicpal, School District, Superintendant, officials, assignor (if applicable) officiating association (if applicable) and the State HS governing body)
On a side note, has anyone heard about a company who comes in and gives baseline readings for athletes and trains the training staff about concussions. If there is a concern of a player being concussed the training staff can give the tests and compare them to baseline? Some officials were talking about it this weekend and one of them said it was on 1K. Any info?