NFHS Rules Changes

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was this basketball?

No it was baseball or softball.

Peace

[asdf]

How the heck do you pay out when you win?

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

How the heck do you pay out when you win?

Attorney fees. Time away from work. Parking, driving, possibly tolls.

[ajmc]

"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." [/I][/B]

Nobody is aksing you to know why a player is hurt, or to know the extent of his injury. However, IF YOU DO SEE something that concerns you in the areas highlighted, all you do is send the player off for further evaluation. This has been a standard response for generations. NF: 3-5-10 currently doesn't require you to know why a player is hurt, or how serious his injury might be, only that if you think (apparent) injury exists, you send him out for evaluation. What's changed?

"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. "

If you can't see something, and the player doesn't tell you how he may be suffering, how could you possibly know there was cause for concern? I don't think they will expect us to read minds.

"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"

I'm sorry, it may be a geographical difference, but most officials I've worked with routinely observe players to make sure they at least appear fit to compete. If not, a closer look, a question or two can identify when all the lights aren't lit, and if that's the case the player needs to be sent out, and officials have been doing that for years.

This revision seems like a simple calling special attention to the danger of concussions, which most officials have been very much aware of for years and have been trying our best to minimize problems.

When an official delivers a player to the sideline for medical evaluation, his responsibility is OVER. It's then the responsibility of the "appropriate health care professional" to deal with him and determine whether he's fit to participate. Schools will bear the responsibility that the health care professional they assign is "appropriate", and I suspect they will have advice in that area and take that responsibility very seriously.

Given the process established, field officials should understand that a player returning, after being sent for evaluation, has been certified as fit to participate. In some rare instance, should a player certified as fit to participate stagger, stumble or otherwise seem incoherent or complain of headache or dizziness, a smart officials might send him right back out for further evaluation. That should be a rare exception and likely not happen at any H.S. level.

However NFHS Rules govern a lot more football than those played under the jurisdiction of local School Systems, and the same quality of "appropriate health care professional" may not be as available. Again, the "smart official" may consider that and be even more cautions about players re-entering a game after being referred for evaluation in non School System games .

I have always understood the proper reaction to a player, who there is any doubt about his ability to function at 100% medical readiness is, "When in doubt, send him out" for evaluation, which has been in effect, and worked reasonably well, for generations.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Nobody is aksing you to know why a player is hurt, or to know the extent of his injury. However, IF YOU DO SEE something that concerns you in the areas highlighted, all you do is send the player off for further evaluation. This has been a standard response for generations. NF: 3-5-10 currently doesn't require you to know why a player is hurt, or how serious his injury might be, only that if you think (apparent) injury exists, you send him out for evaluation. What's changed?

The point you are missing is the language puts responsibility on us from others if we do not notice something or not. We already did not allow players to play if they were hurt for a play, but not say this is the reason they do not play longer and give us a note to prove they can play unless they were knocked unconscious. Concussions (as I have said before) are not that easily diagnosed. And these descriptions that they give are not the only signs of a concussion. So if a player has trouble seeing and we are never told that by the player, we might not know. And please if you have been officiating long enough you should know that people that are totally ignorant of rules, claim we are responsible or incompetent of our duties. This policy puts a bull-eye on the officials.

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you can't see something, and the player doesn't tell you how he may be suffering, how could you possibly know there was cause for concern? I don't think they will expect us to read minds.

I am not just worried about what the NF thinks, I am worried about what the courts might say or not say. And the only way you can prove that is a court case.

Maybe you are not aware, but there have been officials that have had to take depositions for civil lawsuits because a kid was paralyzed in a football game. That does not mean the official got sued, but because of language or procedures of a company, anyone that was in the area or a witness to actions of the medical people involved. And if there is language that puts more responsibility for us to prevent a player to play, we now can be held responsible by a lawyer.


I have given this example before and since the 20th year anniversary of the death of Hank Gathers this must be mentioned. When Hank Gathers died on a basketball court in California years ago, the family or the lawyers sued every person in the building that had something to do with helping or did not help but had training to do so. In other words there were doctors that got sued that were just watching the game because they could have done something. Now that does not mean they lost court cases, but they had to defend themselves in court which we have said costs money.

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm sorry, it may be a geographical difference, but most officials I've worked with routinely observe players to make sure they at least appear fit to compete. If not, a closer look, a question or two can identify when all the lights aren't lit, and if that's the case the player needs to be sent out, and officials have been doing that for years.

I did not say we did not try to figure out if a player can compete. I said that we do not diagnose an injury. There is a difference between seeing a player limping or not being able to get up because there arm hurts. It is quite another thing to determine if that reason is a concussion.

Originally Posted by ajmc

This revision seems like a simple calling special attention to the danger of concussions, which most officials have been very much aware of for years and have been trying our best to minimize problems.

When an official delivers a player to the sideline for medical evaluation, his responsibility is OVER. It's then the responsibility of the "appropriate health care professional" to deal with him and determine whether he's fit to participate. Schools will bear the responsibility that the health care professional they assign is "appropriate", and I suspect they will have advice in that area and take that responsibility very seriously.

Not true if you read the press release correctly. We have to get approval (meaning the officials) in order to allow a player to play if they have a concussion. That means we have to have them either tell us they are OK or we need something in writing. And the rule about the unconscious player made it clear that an MO/DO were the only ones that could give that authorization. This press release does not specify who is allowed to give that kind of authorization. Maybe it will when the rules come out, but right not that is not the case.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Given the process established, field officials should understand that a player returning, after being sent for evaluation, has been certified as fit to participate. In some rare instance, should a player certified as fit to participate stagger, stumble or otherwise seem incoherent or complain of headache or dizziness, a smart officials might send him right back out for further evaluation. That should be a rare exception and likely not happen at any H.S. level.

However NFHS Rules govern a lot more football than those played under the jurisdiction of local School Systems, and the same quality of "appropriate health care professional" may not be as available. Again, the "smart official" may consider that and be even more cautions about players re-entering a game after being referred for evaluation in non School System games .

I have always understood the proper reaction to a player, who there is any doubt about his ability to function at 100% medical readiness is, "When in doubt, send him out" for evaluation, which has been in effect, and worked reasonably well, for generations.

I can speak for my personal experience. I had a hamstring tear a few years back and I was told three different things depending on who the medical professional was. Now I am talking about an orthopedic issue, not a head injury issue, which has a different set of circumstances and expertise. I just feel we should not be in the business to help decide a player should or should not play and clearly who the medical personnel need to be defined. And I hope if it is not defined my state will make that very clear to cover this issue up for the officials. But please do not tell me these are not concerns because you think you understand what they are saying. You are about the only person that has talked about this that seems to completely understand what they are saying. Everyone else has some concerns, some more than others, but concerns none the less.

Peace

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The point you are missing is the language puts responsibility on us from others if we do not notice something or not. We already did not allow players to play if they were hurt for a play, but not say this is the reason they do not play longer and give us a note to prove they can play unless they were knocked unconscious. Concussions (as I have said before) are not that easily diagnosed. And these descriptions that they give are not the only signs of a concussion. So if a player has trouble seeing and we are never told that by the player, we might not know. And please if you have been officiating long enough you should know that people that are totally ignorant of rules, claim we are responsible or incompetent of our duties. This policy puts a bull-eye on the officials.



I am not just worried about what the NF thinks, I am worried about what the courts might say or not say. And the only way you can prove that is a court case.

Maybe you are not aware, but there have been officials that have had to take depositions for civil lawsuits because a kid was paralyzed in a football game. That does not mean the official got sued, but because of language or procedures of a company, anyone that was in the area or a witness to actions of the medical people involved. And if there is language that puts more responsibility for us to prevent a player to play, we now can be held responsible by a lawyer.


I have given this example before and since the 20th year anniversary of the death of Hank Gathers this must be mentioned. When Hank Gathers died on a basketball court in California years ago, the family or the lawyers sued every person in the building that had something to do with helping or did not help but had training to do so. In other words there were doctors that got sued that were just watching the game because they could have done something. Now that does not mean they lost court cases, but they had to defend themselves in court which we have said costs money.



I did not say we did not try to figure out if a player can compete. I said that we do not diagnose an injury. There is a difference between seeing a player limping or not being able to get up because there arm hurts. It is quite another thing to determine if that reason is a concussion.



Not true if you read the press release correctly. We have to get approval (meaning the officials) in order to allow a player to play if they have a concussion. That means we have to have them either tell us they are OK or we need something in writing. And the rule about the unconscious player made it clear that an MO/DO were the only ones that could give that authorization. This press release does not specify who is allowed to give that kind of authorization. Maybe it will when the rules come out, but right not that is not the case.



I can speak for my personal experience. I had a hamstring tear a few years back and I was told three different things depending on who the medical professional was. Now I am talking about an orthopedic issue, not a head injury issue, which has a different set of circumstances and expertise. I just feel we should not be in the business to help decide a player should or should not play and clearly who the medical personnel need to be defined. And I hope if it is not defined my state will make that very clear to cover this issue up for the officials. But please do not tell me these are not concerns because you think you understand what they are saying. You are about the only person that has talked about this that seems to completely understand what they are saying. Everyone else has some concerns, some more than others, but concerns none the less.

Peace

Good post Rut. You have captured the thoughts of numerous concerned officials in your writings.

[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!

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"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." [/i][/b]

Nobody is aksing you to know why a player is hurt, or to know the extent of his injury. However, IF YOU DO SEE something that concerns you in the areas highlighted, all you do is send the player off for further evaluation. This has been a standard response for generations. NF: 3-5-10 currently doesn't require you to know why a player is hurt, or how serious his injury might be, only that if you think (apparent) injury exists, you send him out for evaluation. What's changed?

"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. "

If you can't see something, and the player doesn't tell you how he may be suffering, how could you possibly know there was cause for concern? I don't think they will expect us to read minds.

"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"

I'm sorry, it may be a geographical difference, but most officials I've worked with routinely observe players to make sure they at least appear fit to compete. If not, a closer look, a question or two can identify when all the lights aren't lit, and if that's the case the player needs to be sent out, and officials have been doing that for years.

This revision seems like a simple calling special attention to the danger of concussions, which most officials have been very much aware of for years and have been trying our best to minimize problems.

When an official delivers a player to the sideline for medical evaluation, his responsibility is OVER. It's then the responsibility of the "appropriate health care professional" to deal with him and determine whether he's fit to participate. Schools will bear the responsibility that the health care professional they assign is "appropriate", and I suspect they will have advice in that area and take that responsibility very seriously.

Given the process established, field officials should understand that a player returning, after being sent for evaluation, has been certified as fit to participate. In some rare instance, should a player certified as fit to participate stagger, stumble or otherwise seem incoherent or complain of headache or dizziness, a smart officials might send him right back out for further evaluation. That should be a rare exception and likely not happen at any H.S. level.

However NFHS Rules govern a lot more football than those played under the jurisdiction of local School Systems, and the same quality of "appropriate health care professional" may not be as available. Again, the "smart official" may consider that and be even more cautions about players re-entering a game after being referred for evaluation in non School System games .

I have always understood the proper reaction to a player, who there is any doubt about his ability to function at 100% medical readiness is, "When in doubt, send him out" for evaluation, which has been in effect, and worked reasonably well, for generations.

Not sure what this rambling response is attempting but the fact unlike what the author states is that even medical professionals are unsure of concussions and treatment. The obvious is when the player loses consciousness, it is that state of what in the past was called "getting your bell rung" that is in question. If medical professionals with years of traning are not in agreement on the subject why should we as football officials with no training be held responsible for determining something outside our domain.

Want to refut ajmc's geographical reference since the two of us are a lot closer than Rut and since ajmc and I reside relatively close. We as officials have a great deal of duties to perform whether in Chicago, Long Island, Albany or San Francisco and I have had the pleasure of working in multiple geographies and found officials in all of them to consider the welfare of the players important. The subject of this discussion is whether we should be encumbered with a responsibility for which we have almost no real knowledge to adequately perform regardless of where we live.

[AFHusker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Attorney fees. Time away from work. Parking, driving, possibly tolls.

Probably won't help with time away from work, parking, etc, but good liability insurance will cover attorney fees.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Not sure what this rambling response is attempting but the fact unlike what the author states is that even medical professionals are unsure of concussions and treatment. The obvious is when the player loses consciousness, it is that state of what in the past was called "getting your bell rung" that is in question. If medical professionals with years of traning are not in agreement on the subject why should we as football officials with no training be held responsible for determining something outside our domain.

Want to refut ajmc's geographical reference since the two of us are a lot closer than Rut and since ajmc and I reside relatively close. We as officials have a great deal of duties to perform whether in Chicago, Long Island, Albany or San Francisco and I have had the pleasure of working in multiple geographies and found officials in all of them to consider the welfare of the players important. The subject of this discussion is whether we should be encumbered with a responsibility for which we have almost no real knowledge to adequately perform regardless of where we live.

Ed, I’m not quite sure what you’ve been reading. Where did you read, “we as football officials with no training be held responsible for determining something outside our domain”? The Press Release, that I read, merely suggested that officials will be “asked” to pay close attention to “obvious” signs and behaviors associated with symptoms of concussions, and when such are detected, to direct the afflicted player to “appropriate health-care professionals” for evaluation. Do you have access to additional detail?

I’m not at all surprised that you can say, “I have had the pleasure of working in multiple geographies and found officials in all of them to consider the welfare of the players important”, which is exactly what I suggested in referencing that most officials have been dealing with these type situations, all across this nation, for generations. Did you understand I suggested something different?

What part of, “I'm sorry, it may be a geographical difference, but most officials I've worked with routinely observe players to make sure they at least appear fit to compete. If not, a closer look, a question or two can identify when all the lights aren't lit, and if that's the case the player needs to be sent out, and officials have been doing that for years.” , are you having trouble understanding?

I also have enjoyed the opportunity to officiate in several States, and areas within NY State, and have been fortunate in working with officials, in all those locations, that took player safety very seriously and wouldn’t hesitate in sending a player, who they may have felt for whatever reason including those listed in this rule revision might be physically hampered in further participation, to his sideline for appropriate evaluation, as authorized by NF: 3-5-10.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ed, I’m not quite sure what you’ve been reading. Where did you read, “we as football officials with no training be held responsible for determining something outside our domain”? The Press Release, that I read, merely suggested that officials will be “asked” to pay close attention to “obvious” signs and behaviors associated with symptoms of concussions, and when such are detected, to direct the afflicted player to “appropriate health-care professionals” for evaluation. Do you have access to additional detail?

I’m not at all surprised that you can say, “I have had the pleasure of working in multiple geographies and found officials in all of them to consider the welfare of the players important”, which is exactly what I suggested in referencing that most officials have been dealing with these type situations, all across this nation, for generations. Did you understand I suggested something different?

What part of, “I'm sorry, it may be a geographical difference, but most officials I've worked with routinely observe players to make sure they at least appear fit to compete. If not, a closer look, a question or two can identify when all the lights aren't lit, and if that's the case the player needs to be sent out, and officials have been doing that for years.” , are you having trouble understanding?

I also have enjoyed the opportunity to officiate in several States, and areas within NY State, and have been fortunate in working with officials, in all those locations, that took player safety very seriously and wouldn’t hesitate in sending a player, who they may have felt for whatever reason including those listed in this rule revision might be physically hampered in further participation, to his sideline for appropriate evaluation, as authorized by NF: 3-5-10.

Al, you are missing the point Rut, myself and others are stressing. Officials becoming the primary examiner of player condition, is something we are ill prepared. I would ask if you know the obvious signs of concussion but since you are omnipotent I know that answer. For the remainder of us to ask that we pay close attention to something we have limited to no knowledge is unfair and places us in a delicate position.

I have sent players off the field when it is most obvious they have a problem, the best example is the blood rule, but to ask a football official to be cognizant of the signs of concussion is beyond my pay grade especially considering medical professionals with years of training cannot agree on what to look for. Concussion symptoms are not like blood, compound fractures, dislocated fingers, shoulder separation, etc. that are clearly visible, or, even like a torn ACL where the player openly feels pain. Concussion symptoms are silent, a player may appear to be fine, he may return to the huddle and participate in the next play because concussion involves cognitive functions that may not be apparent.

The point you make about sending a player off because of obvious signs and behavior has no merit when discussing concussions.

If a player sustains a concussion and continues to play only to later express signs lets say after the game would officials be liable because the signs were not recognized. I believe that is the frustration most of us are expressing.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Al, you are missing the point Rut, myself and others are stressing. Officials becoming the primary examiner of player condition, is something we are ill prepared. I would ask if you know the obvious signs of concussion but since you are omnipotent I know that answer. For the remainder of us to ask that we pay close attention to something we have limited to no knowledge is unfair and places us in a delicate position.

Per MayoClinic.com, the signs of concussion are

■Confusion
■Amnesia
■Headache
■Dizziness
■Ringing in the ears
■Nausea or vomiting
■Slurred speech
■Fatigue

I see a couple in there that would be "obvious" but also somewhat inherent to the game itself without a concussive act.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Per MayoClinic.com, the signs of concussion are

■Confusion
■Amnesia
■Headache
■Dizziness
■Ringing in the ears
■Nausea or vomiting
■Slurred speech
■Fatigue

I see a couple in there that would be "obvious" but also somewhat inherent to the game itself without a concussive act.

Good find. A player vomits, is it a concussion, or, did he eat too much, or, could be heat related. You would have no idea that 2 pound burger he ate upset his stomach but it could be a concussion symptom.

Or, confusion. How many times have you seen some player appear confused? Is it natural?