NFHS Rules Changes

[umpirebob71]

Question...Let's say a kid gets really rocked in the 1st quarter, and goes off. The only "appropriate health-care professional" there is an EMT that says he's fine after a few minutes. The kid comes back in, and it's clear he's not "fine." What's to prevent us telling the coach he's not coming back no matter what the EMT says. If it's going to be our butts flapping in the breeze if and when a lawsuit comes, why can't we protect ourselves that way? Just a thought.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by umpirebob71

Question...Let's say a kid gets really rocked in the 1st quarter, and goes off. The only "appropriate health-care professional" there is an EMT that says he's fine after a few minutes. The kid comes back in, and it's clear he's not "fine." What's to prevent us telling the coach he's not coming back no matter what the EMT says. If it's going to be our butts flapping in the breeze if and when a lawsuit comes, why can't we protect ourselves that way? Just a thought.

I appreciate your concern, Bob, but it's just not your job. The responsibility for determining who is a an "appropriate health care professional" doesn't seem like it's going to be assigned to the game officials. Do you really anticipate a player being so obviously incapable of returning, after being examined by the medical personnel, that you would be that concerned?

However, if you do, I don't see anything stopping you frrom sending him right back out for evaluation again, and again, and again, but you'd be doing so anticipating a lot of heat.

[JRutledge]

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

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Even when they ARE obvious, I'm not trained to know when a player has a concussion. Also, I have 4000 other things to worry about during a play and dead ball period than to check players for concussions. There is too much gray area. Should we send players out after every "hard" hit to be safe? I can't be worrying about who has a concussion and effectively manage a game at the same time. This is an asinine rule by the NFHS and should be repealed IMMEDIATELY.

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.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by bossman72

..."Even when they ARE obvious, I'm not trained to know when a player has a concussion".
..."Also, I have 4000 other things to worry about during a play and dead ball period than to check players for concussions".
"There is too much gray area".
..."I can't be worrying about who has a concussion and effectively manage a game at the same time".
..."This is an asinine rule by the NFHS and should be repealed IMMEDIATELY".

..."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.

Bossman72-
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!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by KWH

... without ever reading or reviewing the rule, the rationale, or viewing the accompanying slide show (with pictures) which explains the rule and the rationale in debt.

How far in the hole must I be in order to have an opinion?