Oakland v Oral Roberts Head Gear

[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.