|
|||
Here is why this policy is silly. I have a fellow church choir member that has a son that plays basketball. Apparently, her son hit his head during play and was fouled in the process. He went to the FT line without a single problem. Then after the game (several minutes later) her son claimed he could not see in the locker room after the game. He was diagnosed with a concussion. Now there is no way an official would come close to knowing this kid was hurt or had such an injury. The team did not notice at all until after the game. Now I am sure this is more common than most times, as it requires the officials to somehow use some judgment to know someone is hurt and then have the officials blamed if they do not recognize some signs. I still think the NF put responsibility on the last group of people that would have knowledge of many of these injuries. Remember we do not exam kids for what they are hurt for, so I do not know how we are going to be able to say clearly and consistently how a kid is hurt or not hurt. Even NFL players claim they have more concussions than they report at the time. Some will be very obvious, but many will not be. I am not worried about the obvious situations, I am concerned about the times they are not obvious and someone is going to wonder why we did not prevent a kid from playing.
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
I think if everyone writes their state interpreter in a professional manner, they may pull to put a ban on the rule for the following year, or at least a re-wording to pull the responsibility off the officials. Diagnosing concussions is not our job. PERIOD. |
|
|||
Quote:
about what happened or is happening." Heck, our crew chief might have me on the side lines before our pregame is done. ... but seriously.... I don't see a problem with this. If something happens to one of these kids, and a coach mistakenly thinks it would be safe to just let the person set out a few plays and then come back in, we now have rule authority to remind the coach that's a dumb decision and that it is not allowed.
__________________
Dan |
|
|||
With all due respect, I think some are blowing a lot of unnecessary concern into this rule revision. Ignorant people will always wonder about things thay don't know about and some will say stupid things - so what. Ignoring ignorant people, and the stupid things that say, is part of our job description.
What "responsibility" are you afraid of? You know you're not a doctor and so does the NFHS, that doesn't mean you aren't a rational, competent adult helping to supervise a physically demanding game played by children, and you should be alert for possible signs of a dangerous, and ever present, circumstance that threatens those under your charge. This revision is more about simply calling attention to a very real and constant threat. It suggests officials be vigilant to the "obvious" symptoms of this medical problem, anything about requiring officials to make medical diagnosis, or be responsible for failing to do so, are figments of your imaginations. Basically, this is something every competent official has been doing for generations. If a player doesn't "look right" and you haven't been focusing on him, observing him and assuring yourself that he is in full control of his facilties and fit to play, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN DOING YOUR JOB. When there's any doubt about a players fitness to participate, we send them to the sideline for a safety check. The sideline is responsible to have "appropriate health care professionals" present to make such analysis and recommendations whether that player is fit to return to participate. I suspect that somewhere there's a sideline that doesn't take this responsibility seriously, but that's a rare exception. We don't guarantee absolute perfection in any of the other aspects of our job, so why would you assume perfection will become a requirement of this aspect? Considering the often delayed nature of concussion symptoms, serious, dedicated, competent, "appropriate health care professionals" on the sideline will not be able to guarantee absolute diagnostic perfection either. That doesn't mean we, they and everyone else concerned with MINIMIZING this problem shouldn't focus on the problem and do what we can to responsibly help reduce the threat. The concerns about, "What if it's the star player", "It's late in the game", " a score is imminent" are just to stupid to bother responding to. If you can't blow away those comments in the blink of an eye, maybe this is not the job for you. |
|
|||
Hold your horses!!!
Quote:
There were some pretty smart fellas representing both the medical and legal profession involved in the writing of this rule, yet neverless, you have formed an conclusion and are attempting to 'round up a hangin possee without ever reading or reviewing the rule, the rationale, or viewing the accompaning slide show (with pictures) which explains the rule and the rationale in depth. Perhaps you might just consider giving these fellas a chance to speak before forming an opinion and shooting them down based solely on the wording of a "Press Release?" Just a thought!
__________________
"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber Last edited by KWH; Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 12:44pm. Reason: To correct a blatent gammatical error whereby mbyron could be understanding of my opinion |
|
|||
How far in the hole must I be in order to have an opinion?
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Again, with all due respect, I think you're anticipating a lot of liability and detail that likely doesn't, and won't ever, exist. Of course the proof will come when the actual rules are published, but what has been released thus far, does not add any expectation of medical diagnostic skill, or responsibility to exactly what we've been doing for generations.
There is no suggestion that any official would be expected to diagnose anything, the press release simply outlined some general symptoms and requests we keep an eye out for them. If we observe those symptoms, we seek guidance from "appropriate medical personnel". If we fail to observe a symptom, then it's not obvious, ("Immediately evident without further reasoning or investigation" Funk & Wagnall). A hard hit cannot be interpreted as a concussion, but the player's reaction to that hit certainly can and that's what this ajdustment wants us to observe more carefully. If you haven't been checking a player out after he takes a hard hit, I'd suggest you start. Most officials I work with take a long look at that player to determine if his "bell was rung", if his eyes behave normally, whether he has all his facilities, if he's able to get up by himself and stand under his own power. No, I haven't asked players if they had a headache, but if one complained about a headache, I'd sure pay attention to him. Perhaps "stupid" was the wrong word to use regarding factoring the game situation into a decision about sending a player to the bench for medical evaluation. The word "INSANE" seems a lot more accurate and relevant. I can't guarantee that nobody would be foolish enough to sue an official for exercising his best judgment to remove a player from a game for medical evaluation, but I'd feel pretty comfortable that there would be little, if any, chance of that suit producing a judgment. The far more dangerous "can of worms" to worry about is the one that might be opened if an official chooses to ignore obvious symptoms of a potential concussion, so an injured player can set a record, score a winning touchdown, impress a scout, his girl friend or his parents and collapses when doing so. Last edited by ajmc; Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46pm. |
|
|||
I think this is a CYA move by the FED.
I have on, many occasions over the years, asked a player to "look me in the eye" when he responds to my inquiry of his well being. If he cannot affirm his well being by immediately doing so, he's on his way to the sidelines with a caution to the staff that he's not responding to a direct question. The coaching/medical staffs that I have been working in front of for many years take the player's health and well being very seriously. Unless our directives are worded as such that they put us in too much in the mix, I don't have a problem with it. |
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Wacky, unscrupulous attornies may well be the second worst cause of stupid problems we face today, although ignorant comments from people who have no idea what they are talking about may run a close third.
However, there is valid argument that the number one cause of stupid problems we face today is the irrational fear of what wacky, unscrupulous attornies "might" do, or paying too much attention to those people who insist on barking about things they know nothing about, or simply don't matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be aware of the damage these fools can cause, rather we should not allow ourselves to be intimidated by them, to the point we don't do our jobs as well as we know how. |
|
|||
This rule will change how I deal with a player who I believe may have received a head injury. Previously, if I felt a player MAY have something wrong with him I would do the following.
Me: You okay 25? 25: Fine Me: Coach, 25 may have taken a shot to the head I would like you to have him checked. The reasons for this approach are simple. A. I am not a doctor or other health care professional. B. No one on my crew is a doctor of health care professional. C. 25 has a helmet on. D. I have never met 25 until this very moment; and, thus don't know what is normal or abnormal behavior for 25. E. The coach does know 25 and probably could more easily recognize abnormal behavior. F. The coach usually has access to a health care professional, which I do not. NOW, if I suspect a head injury, I have two choices. (1) Remove the player (who I do not know) from the game based on my untrained suspicions. (2) Say nothing. Which one do you think I will do. As an aside this example did not deal with a player that was unconscious or appeared to be so, but a kid who may or may not have gotten his bell rung. In my opinion this change will lead to LESS investigation of head injuries, rather than more. |
|
|||
Quote:
Now of course we do not know what the final writing is, but I think it is totally appropriate to question the validity. Now on the NF site there are people that have training in this issue and they have serious concerns of this rule. Now if people that actually are in the medical profession have concerns, it is totally understandable for someone that does not work in that area to have a similar concern. Just because you want to dismiss those concerns does not mean that those concerns are not real or valid. And even in this conversation there was a lawyer that showed a concern. Now just maybe the NF will write the rule in a way that makes it clear we are only apart of that, but that is not what is suggested in the press release. Usually the press release is not that much different than the way the rules are written or want to interpret the way things are intended. We will just have to see, but these still are real concerns. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
I totally agree that the final determination about concern will rest largely on what the rule revision actually says, however I simply don't agree that the news release actually says anything to be really concerned about. I am not suggesting anyone dismiss concerns, but I don't think exaggerating them serves any useful purpose either.
Today's language in NF:3-5-10 of, "an apparently injured player is discovered by the official" seems to limit any responsibility an official might have to the extent the official must discover something, and it must be apparent to him that whatever he discovered suggests a possible injury. The NFHS Press Release states, "Now, officials are charged with removing any player who shows signs, symptoms or behaviors consistent with a concussion, such as loss of consciousness, headache, dizziness, confusion or balance problems, and shall not return to play until cleared by an appropriate health-care professional." It seems the quantifying requirement would be that any athlete in question has "to show signs" of the symptoms or behaviors that suggest the possibility of concussion, and when any of these signs is recognized, refer the player to the team's, "appropriate health care professional". I suspect the news release may well be somewhat more ambiguous than the actual rule will turn out to be, but I see nothing in the tone of this revision that comes anyway near anticipating field officials diagnose a concussion, or would be responsible for signs that were not obvious and recognizable. Requesting that we look for specific signs, (that I submit most, if not all, officials have been looking for for generations) and specifying those signs to look for, doesn't seem to add to the level of liability we currently have to hold player safety as a paramount responsibility, it merely focuses attention to this particular circumstance, which "Points of Emphasis" do every year with a variety of issues. As the incident in Texas (The collision between an official and a coach, where the coach was seriously injured and despite the coach accepting responsibility for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, causing the collision, the covering official was sued by an Insurance Company over Woekmens Compensation payments to the Coach, who was unable to continue working as a result of his injuries) should warn us all, we have little or no control over who may choose to sue us about anything we do, aside from doing our very best to do our job as properly as possible. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFHS Rules Interpreters versus IAABO Rules Interpreters | dpicard | Basketball | 7 | Mon Dec 07, 2009 01:13pm |
rules changes NFHS | RILAX | Lacrosse | 0 | Thu Aug 12, 2004 02:17pm |
NFHS Bat Rules | WestMichBlue | Softball | 24 | Fri Apr 16, 2004 09:40pm |
New rules for NFHS | RILAX | Lacrosse | 4 | Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:48am |
NEW - 2003 NFHS Football Rule Changes (as written by the NFHS Rules Committee) | KWH | Football | 27 | Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:30am |