NFHS Rules Changes

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ed, from where do you get the notion that anyone has a rational expectation of, "Officials becoming the primary examiner of player condition". Sorry, but even if you stay at a Holiday Inn Express, you have to finish medical school and/or be certified at some clinical level to assume those responsibilities.

Anyone assuming you are somehow automatically qualified to render accurate diagnosis is a complete fool, including any attorney who wants to hold you responsible for being something you have never claimed to be, or there is no reasonable expectation that you automatically are. As previously suggested, the irrational fear of what some bogeyman attorney "might" do, creates little but unnecessary paralisys.

Forgive me, but it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to, "be cognizant of the signs of concussion", which is a whole lot different from diagnosing potential concussion. You are not a doctor, stop trying to convince yourself anyone will ever presume you are an "appropriate health-care professional".

With all due respect to, and appreciation for, Mayoclinic.com, their list of concussion symptoms, in situations, where they are being displayed at an obviously problematic level, are and have long been, worthy of sending a player off for evaluation, regardless of what might actually prove to be causing them.

The point being missed may simply be that you are getting way, way ahead of yourself conjuring up all sorts of exaggerations that that will likely never, ever be part of any (actual) expectation or rule. If some of your wildest concerns do make it to the final rule wording, they will have to be addressed and dealth with, but as of now, based on a news release, there's little chance the sky is in any serious danger of falling.

Al, understand you read the dictionary, however, look up the second definition of "primary" that means the first in a series. By that I mean the official becomes the first to note the symptoms as opposed to "primary" meaning the highest rank which would be the doctor only after suspected identifcation by the official. And, I hate Holiday Inn Express.

To the point and I would like to see your answer, in short form please.

A player vomits. You send him off for evaluation. Do you restrict him from competition because he displayed a sign of concussion?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Al, understand you read the dictionary, however, look up the second definition of "primary" that means the first in a series. By that I mean the official becomes the first to note the symptoms as opposed to "primary" meaning the highest rank which would be the doctor only after suspected identifcation by the official. And, I hate Holiday Inn Express.

To the point and I would like to see your answer, in short form please.

A player vomits. You send him off for evaluation. Do you restrict him from competition because he displayed a sign of concussion?

As briefly as possible Ed, for years I've assessed that a player vomiting on the field, had some sort of medical issue that common sense guided me to invoke NF: 3-5-10-a (in it's current format) and turn him over to someone in a better position to evaluate and determine if what caused him to vomit was a threat to his ability to continue playing.

I'm under the impression a whole raft of things can cause a player to vomit, and none of them are good. I'm also absolutely convinced I'm nowhere near competent to diagnose what might specifically be causing that reaction and trust the resources, normally available, are in a far better position to determine cause and decide if that player is fit to continue.

Just for the record, if he were to comeback in a play later and barf again (before, during or after) the next play, I'm going to send him back out for additional assessment.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

As briefly as possible Ed, for years I've assessed that a player vomiting on the field, had some sort of medical issue that common sense guided me to invoke NF: 3-5-10-a (in it's current format) and turn him over to someone in a better position to evaluate and determine if what caused him to vomit was a threat to his ability to continue playing.

I'm under the impression a whole raft of things can cause a player to vomit, and none of them are good. I'm also absolutely convinced I'm nowhere near competent to diagnose what might specifically be causing that reaction and trust the resources, normally available, are in a far better position to determine cause and decide if that player is fit to continue.

Just for the record, if he were to comeback in a play later and barf again (before, during or after) the next play, I'm going to send him back out for additional assessment.

You did not answer the question posed?

Let me restate and add some clarity. Player vomits. This is one of the signs of a concussion. It is a lower level game with no medical personnel immediately available. Do you sit him?

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

You did not answer the question posed?

Let me restate and add some clarity. Player vomits. This is one of the signs of a concussion. It is a lower level game with no medical personnel immediately available. Do you sit him?

What kind of a stupid question is this? Has the number, location, or skill of the training staff ever had anything to do with sending someone out of the game?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Cobra

What kind of a stupid question is this? Has the number, location, or skill of the training staff ever had anything to do with sending someone out of the game?

You may think it is stupid but take ajmc's answer. You don't have medical personnel to rely on a many lower level games, in fact, sending a player out in circumstances where medical personnel are absent relies on a coach's evaluation and he may be more ignorant of concussion symptoms than the officials. Now NFHS shifts the onus for concussion evaluation upon officials. Coach goes he's ok, putting him back in the game.

Later than evening he is rushed to the ER and diagnosed with a severe concussion.

Now tell me that question is stupid! It is reality!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

You did not answer the question posed?

Let me restate and add some clarity. Player vomits. This is one of the signs of a concussion. It is a lower level game with no medical personnel immediately available. Do you sit him?

Of course I answered your question. You didn't like the answer so you added additional qualifications to try and frame am answer the way you want the answer to look. If you want to answer your question, go ahead and answer it, don't waste my time with really stupid "yea, but" nonsense to try and get a different answer from me.

If you'd like to take your question even further, allow me to provide the answer you appear to be searching for. If I'm dealing with, what might be considered inappropriate or inadequate health-care professionals, whose decisions I was not comfortable with, I'm confident I could bring sufficient interpersonal skills into play so as to persuade, those whose decision I may be uncomfortable with, to accept my point of view which would ALWAYS favor the side of player safety and caution.

If you require written authorization before feeling comfortable enough to respond to your own common sense, you might find solace in the second sentence of NF: 1-1-6, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.". Of course that requires you be comfortable with and ready to accept any consequences related to your decisions.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion this is some kind of vote, it is not. The field official has the unilateral authority to decide when and if a player's condition merits further evaluation, and turns him over to sideline administrative personnel to conduct appropriate evaluation. The sideline has unilateral authority to determine, as well as the unilateral responsibility to provide, an appropriate evaluator who will conduct an appropriate evaluation and determine, without any input or consultation from field officials, whether that player is medically fit to resume play.

Other than really extreme and rare circumstances, such as addresed above, the decisions, of the sideline personnel responsible for making that determination, hold sway.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Of course I answered your question. You didn't like the answer so you added additional qualifications to try and frame am answer the way you want the answer to look. If you want to answer your question, go ahead and answer it, don't waste my time with really stupid "yea, but" nonsense to try and get a different answer from me.

If you'd like to take your question even further, allow me to provide the answer you appear to be searching for. If I'm dealing with, what might be considered inappropriate or inadequate health-care professionals, whose decisions I was not comfortable with, I'm confident I could bring sufficient interpersonal skills into play so as to persuade, those whose decision I may be uncomfortable with, to accept my point of view which would ALWAYS favor the side of player safety and caution.

If you require written authorization before feeling comfortable enough to respond to your own common sense, you might find solace in the second sentence of NF: 1-1-6, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.". Of course that requires you be comfortable with and ready to accept any consequences related to your decisions.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion this is some kind of vote, it is not. The field official has the unilateral authority to decide when and if a player's condition merits further evaluation, and turns him over to sideline administrative personnel to conduct appropriate evaluation. The sideline has unilateral authority to determine, as well as the unilateral responsibility to provide, an appropriate evaluator who will conduct an appropriate evaluation and determine, without any input or consultation from field officials, whether that player is medically fit to resume play.

Other than really extreme and rare circumstances, such as addresed above, the decisions, of the sideline personnel responsible for making that determination, hold sway.

Al, I'm not looking for a set answer, I am asking for consideration of various circumstances we may encounter. The rule is there, we must deal with it the same as officials in all the other sports. There were obvious assumptions made at the NFHS and Rules Committee levels and many have expressed concern over implemenation for good reason. I'm intelligent and objective enough to listen to others without judgment as I would expect the same consideration. Just like when I'm in the classroom and tell the students who happen to be adult there is no such thing as a stupid question because you have enough knowledge to know this might happen. And, from experience we all know the Rules Committees seek feedback and often act upon the feedback they consider appropriate.

You may think you have all the answers but as expressed earlier in this thread others see problems and anyone who seeks to stifle honest thought really needs to seek life in a republic where dissenters are quieted at the muzzle end of a gun. Luckily we live where thought is valuable. Where thought produces progress and resolves problems. Thanks Comrade.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

You may think you have all the answers but as expressed earlier in this thread others see problems and anyone who seeks to stifle honest thought really needs to seek life in a republic where dissenters are quieted at the muzzle end of a gun. Luckily we live where thought is valuable. Where thought produces progress and resolves problems. Thanks Comrade.

Ed, when you set a confrontational tone in asking questions, you shouldn't be surprised if the answers given match your tone. You're entitled to make whatever assumptions you like, but that doesn't mean that those assumptions are probable enough to construct, or impact, procedures or rules.

Your concern seems to be about a level of responsibilities that current rules nor the suggested revisions suggest.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ed, when you set a confrontational tone in asking questions, you shouldn't be surprised if the answers given match your tone. You're entitled to make whatever assumptions you like, but that doesn't mean that those assumptions are probable enough to construct, or impact, procedures or rules.

Your concern seems to be about a level of responsibilities that current rules nor the suggested revisions suggest.

You have told everyone that they are crazy for having concerns and you are talking about the tone that Ed has to ask a basic and realistic question?

I am sorry, there is nothing you are going to say here that is going to change my mind. As of right now, the issues that this raises has me concerned as well as others. You can say that we know how to diagnose these things, I clearly feel I cannot. And Ed raised a very good issue. I have seen players vomit in games and I never once thought it was a possibility of a concussion. Now since that is a possibility, you will have inconsistent applications as most people that officiate football will not read this thread and will not know that is even a sign or symptom. At best that is a visible sign where the other things listed are subjective at best from a far.

At the end of the day, I do not have to work with you or others. So this is really not necessary to keep debating this issue. I will wait until my state comes out with clearer information and ask questions when I am not sure what the policy is.

Peace