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