Oakland v Oral Roberts Head Gear

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

The medical staff shouldn't be allowing him to play when he's had 3 concussions in three weeks.

Now THAT's the kind of thing that will get you in trouble: rendering medical judgments without a license is lawyer-bait. What qualifies you to judge the severity of the concussions, and their impact on this individual? Yikes.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Now THAT's the kind of thing that will get you in trouble: rendering medical judgments without a license is lawyer-bait. What qualifies you to judge the severity of the concussions, and their impact on this individual? Yikes.

He's safe. The precedent has been set by allowing fans to make game judgments without a license, and no lawyer has ever sued a fan for those types of egregious errors.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Now THAT's the kind of thing that will get you in trouble: rendering medical judgments without a license is lawyer-bait. What qualifies you to judge the severity of the concussions, and their impact on this individual? Yikes.

Really? I would argue that the MEDICAL staff is making itself lawyer bait for letting the kid play. Especially with all of the emphasis on concussions. Either the article was incorrect in saying he HAD 3 concussions in 3 weeks or the medical team put this player in unnecessary risk.
As an official, if they are at the table, I am letting them on the floor if they "don't appear concussed".

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Now THAT's the kind of thing that will get you in trouble: rendering medical judgments without a license is lawyer-bait. What qualifies you to judge the severity of the concussions, and their impact on this individual? Yikes.

Oh just settle down. I never said as an official I would keep the kid out of the game (assuming I didn't notice any symptoms). I'm saying anyone able to get 3 concussions in 3 weeks is not being served appropriately by the team's medical and coaching staff. Can you argue with that? Research shows that the most damage comes from subsequent concussions before the original one heals.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Oh just settle down. I never said as an official I would keep the kid out of the game (assuming I didn't notice any symptoms). I'm saying anyone able to get 3 concussions in 3 weeks is not being served appropriately by the team's medical and coaching staff. Can you argue with that? Research shows that the most damage comes from multiple concussions before the prior one heals.

Personally, I think your statement jumps too quickly to a conclusion ("is not being served" and "shouldn't be allowed to play").

There are "degrees" of concussions. And, it's entirely possible that the prior one healed / the player passed the post-concussion test, etc.

Just like when we get second-hand stories about an official's call, we like to get the official's side of the story, I think we should get the medical staff's side of the story here.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Personally, I think your statement jumps too quickly to a conclusion ("is not being served" and "shouldn't be allowed to play").

There are "degrees" of concussions. And, it's entirely possible that the prior one healed / the player passed the post-concussion test, etc.

Just like when we get second-hand stories about an official's call, we like to get the official's side of the story, I think we should get the medical staff's side of the story here.

Exactly right.

I don't have sufficient medical training to assert conclusively that 3 concussions of any degree over 3 weeks automatically disqualifies a player. Sure it sounds bad, but that's not my call (here or on the court).

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Exactly right.

I don't have sufficient medical training to assert conclusively that 3 concussions of any degree over 3 weeks automatically disqualifies a player. Sure it sounds bad, but that's not my call (here or on the court).

Can you clarify why you thought my first statement was "lawyer-bait"? I think you misread it and jumped to conclusions, correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Can you clarify why you thought my first statement was "lawyer-bait"? I think you misread it and jumped to conclusions, correct?

I don't think I misread it. Your statement is (or entails) a medical judgment. I did assume that you have no medical license. A habit of dispensing medical opinions without a license, especially in the context of sports, will attract lawyers.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Personally, I think your statement jumps too quickly to a conclusion ("is not being served" and "shouldn't be allowed to play").

There are "degrees" of concussions. And, it's entirely possible that the prior one healed / the player passed the post-concussion test, etc.

Just like when we get second-hand stories about an official's call, we like to get the official's side of the story, I think we should get the medical staff's side of the story here.

You're probably right Bob. Thanks for at least reading what my post said. Hopefully the medical staff is monitoring him closely and along with the headgear has given him a top of the line mouth guard (Brain Pad, Shock Dr., etc).