NFHS Rules Changes

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Why do you have to be afraid of a responsibility to recognize that we might not do a consistent or admirable job that is going to be good for the player involved? I simply think that many of the symptoms are not going to be easily noticed by officials as we have clearly been taught for years to allow medical personnel to do their job. We do not diagnose neck injuries, why would we diagnose head injuries? I do not understand the NF's logic on this at all.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

But most issues like this are not obvious. And the language does not say "obvious" it says that if we notice these things that we are not trained to notice. Remember, we are not medical personnel that gets to exam the players. A hard hit could easily be misinterpreted as a concussion. I just think that is in bad form to put this on a group of people that officiate the game and do not have direct conversations with most players.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Wrong again. I have never tried to diagnose any injury of a kid. All we do is determine if a kid can get up and physically play. We do not talk to kids where we know they have a concussion. I have never asked a kid if he has a headache or can he or can he not see well.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Well if it is too stupid to acknowledge than you obviously do not look at through the eyes of the players and coaches which we have to deal with. For one if we take a kid out of the game based on what we feel and we are wrong, officials have been sued just over a call over the outcome. Now we are asked to make a medical decision that might make it difficult for someone to diagnose in a speedy time frame. This is just a badly written rule at this point. I have no problem if we were able to diagnose these, but the fact we are not often qualified opens up a can of worms.

Peace

[ajmc]

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.

[asdf]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

We are in a litigious society. We have literally had lawsuits or legal action taken over something that happens in a game outcome. And one of the reasons medical fees cost a lot, is because we have doctors and other medical professions being sued over what they do in their profession. You really think if people think we are now responsible for determining a concussion, that there will not be someone that thinks we did not do our job or due diligence? I am not going to say it will happen on a regular basis, but all it takes is this to happen to you and I bet you will change your mind. At least before this there was no language that put this directly on the officials.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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).

Nothing? Really? Sorry, they asked the officials to take action if they see symptoms of a concussion as spelled out. We are to make the decision and then the medical people are to allow them to come back.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Maybe not in itself, but it could be see that way. And as I have said there are many times concussions do not come about from an "event" that any of us are aware of. A player could function wonderfully from a far and have an issue when further examined.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Again, I am not saying that there will be lawsuits galore, I just feel that they have put more responsibility on the officials than needs to be. Others will read into these statements and make their own judgments. We are officials and we understand that more explanation is to come. But we have people that watch yelling and screaming at officials all the time for things they know nothing about and the rules are clearly written. I am just saying we will have coaches and others claiming we did not do our job because we did not know a player legitimately had a concussion. I talk to enough people outside of our profession and the ignorance is amazing of people that have no idea what we do. You think this is going to make them more educated because they say we have to take action if a player gets a concussion?

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

And there is the problem. You might think someone is ignoring symptoms while the official just was not aware of the symptoms at all. Or did not in their judgment think there was any symptoms. And the fact the NF put this in our lap is the problem. Let people that deal with this take responsibility.

Peace

[ajmc]

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.

[parepat]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I just had a person tell me the other day they were sued over a jewelry issue in another sport. And they complained how they had to pay out money for a situation they did not lose in court. They had to pay a lot of money and those rules are not nearly as descriptive and holds the officials that much responsible as this rule seems to do.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just had a person tell me the other day they were sued over a jewelry issue in another sport. And they complained how they had to pay out money for a situation they did not lose in court. They had to pay a lot of money and those rules are not nearly as descriptive and holds the officials that much responsible as this rule seems to do.

Was this basketball?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was this basketball?

No it was baseball or softball.

Peace

[ajmc]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

We are not going to agree on this either way. My point is if lawyers and medical professionals that happened to be officials are showing concern, I think that is a reason to be concerned. And when I consider what kind of interaction I have or do not have with players, I am even more concerned when I know I rarely know in a football situation why a player is hurt or down on the ground. And concussions often do not involve a player being carried off the field.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

The press release is very ambiguous. That is the reason we are concerned and talking about it now. And I am sure many states will make sure they cover themselves with a policy that might have more detail if these loopholes are not covered up. And the main problem with their language is it assumes that we know if players actually are having these symptoms. And once again, it really needs to be defined who is acceptable as a medical heath care professional and I think documentation needs to be required. Not just someone saying they are a doctor tell us, "He is OK to play."

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

The only thing I have looked for is to see if players are hurt. Then I allow players to be helped by the team. I do not look to see why the player is hurt. And I have never had to rule on a player being unconscious. And as said before a head injury is not always clearly seen.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

This is not that situation. This is a new rule or editorial change that puts officials to recognize something we did not have to recognize before. I have no problem ruling on an unconscious player that is rather easy. But to know a player is dizzy as they are being helped off the field is another issue when I have not had a conversation with that player. There is a reason when a player is hurt they go out to see what is wrong and it takes sometimes several minutes to determine. All we have is a spot check that is not enough in my opinion.

Peace

[KWH]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just had a person tell me the other day they were sued over a jewelry issue in another sport. And they complained how they had to pay out money for a situation they did not lose in court. They had to pay a lot of money and those rules are not nearly as descriptive and holds the officials that much responsible as this rule seems to do.

Peace

Huh?