NFHS Rules Changes

[Adam]

We've heard rumors this is coming to basketball, too. I don't mind making the decision when I think they've lost consciousness, but I'm not trained to recognize a concussion. I was hoping they wouldn't put it on the officials, because you can bet your a$$ as soon as a player gets a concussion the parents are going to sue the official if he didn't tell the coach he couldn't play.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We've heard rumors this is coming to basketball, too. I don't mind making the decision when I think they've lost consciousness, but I'm not trained to recognize a concussion. I was hoping they wouldn't put it on the officials, because you can bet your a$$ as soon as a player gets a concussion the parents are going to sue the official if he didn't tell the coach he couldn't play.

Exactly. Which means that every player who gets a little bump on the head will be done for the night.

[Texas Aggie]

Once NFHS insurance rates soar because officials are being sued for allowing players showing "obvious" signs of a concussion to play, this rule might be changed.

Actually, their motivation is to keep THEM (the NF) from being sued, not you or I.

As an attorney, I would be extremely concerned about this, so much to the point where I *might* advise a client not to officiate in games played under these rules. If you work 40 games a year, you are bound to have 4-6 concussions. How many of those did you know about? How many kept playing?

This is insane. I sure hope the NCAA doesn't do this.

[bigjohn]

Points of emphasis adopted by the NFHS Football Rules Committee for the 2010 season include concussion recognition and management, heat illness and hydration, illegal helmet contact, assisting the runner, sportsmanship and public-address announcers, and NFHS Football Officials Manual.


IHC, imagine that! Assisting the runner? As in Rule 9-1? Helping the Runner?


If they had added illegal equipment(adornments) I would have gotten my Trifecta!!!!!!!!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

This is insane. I sure hope the NCAA doesn't do this.

Now that the Fed has, I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA follows suit, especially since it is already being considered. Think we'll see this in basketball for this year's rule changes?

[bigjohn]

In Rule 3-7-1, the committee revised the time frame for replacing players from “immediately” to “within three seconds.”

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Now that the Fed has, I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA follows suit, especially since it is already being considered. Think we'll see this in basketball for this year's rule changes?

Yes, it states in the release that they're putting it the rules for all sports. Track officials are not off the hook.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, it states in the release that they're putting it the rules for all sports. Track officials are not off the hook.

I missed that earlier. Yikes.

[JRutledge]

I said this on the other board. This thing about concussions is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard from the NF committee. We are supposed to decide if someone with a helmet on has a headache.

When I was in high school I had two teammates get concussions during the same game. One I could not tell he was concussed at all until we had a discussion about a class and an assignment. When he repeated what he said I felt there were something wrong and alerted doctors. The other individual was very much hurt but there was no event in the game that alerted anyone. I also reported this to the trainers and made it clear his condition was an issue. Neither of these I would be able to identify easily on the field of play as they both were found out by conversations and this was long before the media concerns and issues on this topic.

This is a very bad decision and they might have to deal with this in court to change their stance.

Peace

[procivil]

I am fearful of the liability placed on officials. One could argue neglegence on an official not only for a misinterpretation of a players condition or symptoms, but argue neglegence if he was not in the right position to see the player in the first place. So if player A12 gets a concussion from a hit following a pass and the ref either didnt see the hit and/or did not observe A12 after the play because he was busy marking off a penalty, then he could be held liable. Often the standard on legal neglegence is not IF you knew, but were you in the position where you should have know. Wow!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Exactly. Which means that every player who gets a little bump on the head will be done for the night.

Funny you say this. I had a basketball game on TV this past Saturday and there were two teammates that ran into each other. I was the covering official and I did not know they bumped heads at all. One of the players was down and stayed down. I did not know until I saw the replay at home that the kids bumped heads. The kid stayed down for awhile and I believe he came back into the game. I stayed away as the medical people came out onto the floor almost immediately and they were checking on him. Now this is basketball where players do not have helmets and other devices covering their heads. And I could not tell or did not try to do more than I am normally asked to do based on the fact that that is for the medical people and coach to decide. Now the player was laying face down and it was not easy to tell why he was down at the time. This is bad on so many levels, but I have stated that before.

Peace

[Adam]

I'll be curious to see what sort of guidance we get from the state and/or the NFHS on how to actually go about enforcing this one.

[Mike L]

I'm less than thrilled. Do we cover our butts and remove anyone with any sort of sign only to incur the wrath of the coaching staffs? And just what qualifies as an appropriate "health care professional" anyway? Doctor? Nurse? EMT? Does the team trainer know anything beyond tapes and sprains?

[jaybird]

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.

"Unconscious or apparently unconscious" was direct and more easily identifiable and the requirement to return was more restrictive.

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.

Now, we must be capable of diagnosing the symptoms while the clearance to return has been "watered down" from a written authorization by a medical doctor to a clearance by "an appropriate health care professional", whatever that means.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

"Unconscious or apparently unconscious" was direct and more easily identifiable and the requirement to return was more restrictive. Now, we must be capable of diagnosing the symptoms while the clearance to return has been "watered down" from a written authorization by a medical doctor to a clearance by "an appropriate health care professional", whatever that means.

The specific wordage of the final rule is certainly critical, but the announcement relates to the same type general observations currently included in NF: 3-5-10, with special attention paid to obvious symptomes of a possible concussion. There are no "diagnosis requirements" included in this revision, at least as currently presented.

I presume most officials have, for years, considered a player that was visibly dizzy, incoherent, unable to balance himself or was complaining of headache as removeable or other observations pertaining to a possible concussion, cause for removing a player under provisions of 3-5-10-a. At times, some Coaches have questioned such decisions, but to absolutely no avail as the matter is totally beyond their control or authority.

This revision clearly places the responsibility of having an "appropriate health care professional" squarely on the team, not on the officials, to determine if, and when, a player is fit to re-enter the contest.

This revision simply calls attention to the reality that we are participants in a competitive, school-sponsored physical activity exercise and not a matter of such importance that would justify risking potential long term health threats to the student athlete participants.

It deems significance of a players impact on potential score, potential outcome of the contest, potential record breaking or scholarship offers are simply not of equal concern to potential long term health risk.