NFHS Rules Changes

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't think I suggested anyone is crazy, but the extent of some of the concerns raised are simply not supported by the information that's been released and seem somewhat exaggerated. I DO NOT think game officials are competent to "diagnose concussions" and have suggested that anyone who thinks they are, is absolutely wrong.

I have seen any number of players vomit during games, and the issue of concussion has never entered my mind, but I have always sent those players to their sideline to be assessed as to why they threw up, because I do believe throwing up is an obvious sign that something is wrong.

Having a concussion as opposed to having heat stroke or being dehydrated or two complete different situations and set of circumstances and require different documentation now. And if you do not understand that distinction and why that is a concern, well I really do not know what to tell you.

Originally Posted by ajmc

The same has been true if I saw a player who a appeared dizzy, out of balance, incoherent or non-responsive. I've never had a player complain of headaches, and would have no way of otherwise knowing if he didn't complain, but if a player does complain of headache, I would send him out for assessment. None of that has anything to do with my diagnosing anything, I'm not a doctor and nobody has any logical reason to think, or even imagine, that I'm qualified to diagnose anything.

I can see dizzy and out of balance a little, but again those could be for other medical issues. Those are not just automatically because of a concussion.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Since I make no claim to be competent to make a medical diagnosis, have never suggested I am competent to do so and there has never been any indication made that I am, or should be expected to be competent in making a diagnosis of concussion, how can I be held responsible for failing to make such a diagnosis?

Easily, if you think one is for dehydration and it is really a concussion. You let the player come back in thinking they had an issue that was not related to a concussion and someone puts them back into the game. Someone just might say "you" were negligent and did not do your job. Or if you allowed a player to come back in the game because a trainer told you they were OK (if the rule is not specifically defined). Someone can and will say you were not doing your job and when they find out that the concussion helped result in something serious (and they can lead to death); you might be one of the many people they come looking for to pay for someone's loss. That in my opinion should not be the role of an official, especially those that are not doctors or nurses or even athletic trainers by trade.

No one is saying we are concerned that we will not send off a player. We are concerned that we might think a players is hurt for another reason and then found out they had a concussion. Or even better, we send a player off for what we believe to be a concussion, then it clearly is not after a thorough examination and we somehow get blamed for it being the wrong player and something affecting the outcome. Sorry, I see a lot of problems with this language. It is one thing to send a player off for a play or two, it is quite another to diagnose an injury that may or may not be present.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Having a concussion as opposed to having heat stroke or being dehydrated or two complete different situations and set of circumstances and require different documentation now. And if you do not understand that distinction and why that is a concern, well I really do not know what to tell you.



I can see dizzy and out of balance a little, but again those could be for other medical issues. Those are not just automatically because of a concussion.



Easily, if you think one is for dehydration and it is really a concussion. You let the player come back in thinking they had an issue that was not related to a concussion and someone puts them back into the game. Someone just might say "you" were negligent and did not do your job. Or if you allowed a player to come back in the game because a trainer told you they were OK (if the rule is not specifically defined). Someone can and will say you were not doing your job and when they find out that the concussion helped result in something serious (and they can lead to death); you might be one of the many people they come looking for to pay for someone's loss. That in my opinion should not be the role of an official, especially those that are not doctors or nurses or even athletic trainers by trade.

No one is saying we are concerned that we will not send off a player. We are concerned that we might think a players is hurt for another reason and then found out they had a concussion. Or even better, we send a player off for what we believe to be a concussion, then it clearly is not after a thorough examination and we somehow get blamed for it being the wrong player and something affecting the outcome. Sorry, I see a lot of problems with this language. It is one thing to send a player off for a play or two, it is quite another to diagnose an injury that may or may not be present.

Peace

Now you're just being silly. All this nonsense about whether you send a player off because you suspect a potential concussion, rather than a heatstroke is a bright red herring. The simple fact is YOU sent him off because YOU sensed he MAY not be fit to continue for WHATEVER reason, is what counts.

Specifically why you sent him off doesn't matter. THAT you sent him off is what counts, from that point on it's the sole responsibility of the team's designated, "appropriate health-care professional" to determine if there's a problem, what that problem might actually be and to evaluate his fitness to continue participating and determine whether or not he reenters the game.

If they determine there's no problem, wonderful, he comes back in one play later and life goes on. Clearly and appropriately, the Gods of football have decreed this is an area we should err on the side of caution, which when you consider the grand scheme of things that matter, makes a lot of sense. How we may respond to, or even care about, comments regarding whether the outcome of the game might have been affected by your choosing to verify a players personal safety, is entirely up to the individual. Personally, I don't recommend spending a lot of time on it.

Some fool, actually any fool, can say anything fools are inclined to say. Whatever they choose to say really doesn't matter, unless and until YOU choose to pay attention to them. If we choose to fixate on the possibilities of what fools might conjure up as possible problems, we can find all sorts of "problems" in any rule language seeking verbiage that will cover the full imagination of fools, and never reach total protection.

As long as we acknowledge we're not doctors, make no claim to being an "appropriate health-care professional (as associated with our function on the field during a game) or claim or offer medical expertise or attempt to project a diagnosis, we bear no responsibility for medical judgments made, or not made, based on our job performance as game officials.

If you want to get yourself all worked up about, what at this point is absolute and pure speculation and imagination, that's up to you and on you. I'm comfortable waiting until the written rule is published, which I anticipate will include a rational caution to be attentive to the issue of concussion, which has been identified as a problem area.

[JRutledge]

Al,

There are people literally on the National Federation Forum that have been discussing this rule. You are the only person that seems to think that there is not a problem. And there are people that have identified themselves as people in the medical profession (several have) and they feel uncomfortable with the way this rule is written because they realize you need more examination and training to determine a real concussion. Now if you do not want to accept that, this is fine with me. I have concerns and will continue to until they change the rules or the language to not have me concerned.

Life will go on.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Al,

There are people literally on the National Federation Forum that have been discussing this rule. You are the only person that seems to think that there is not a problem. And there are people that have identified themselves as people in the medical profession (several have) and they feel uncomfortable with the way this rule is written because they realize you need more examination and training to determine a real concussion. Now if you do not want to accept that, this is fine with me. I have concerns and will continue to until they change the rules or the language to not have me concerned.

Life will go on.

Peace

I didn't realize the rule had been written, and haven't seen the details. I'll continue hoping the final version doesn't put any unrealistic expectations in place, or cause any unnecessary concerns, and will look forward to it's publication.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I didn't realize the rule had been written, and haven't seen the details. I'll continue hoping the final version doesn't put any unrealistic expectations in place, or cause any unnecessary concerns, and will look forward to it's publication.

This is still a change in the rule, the final wording might not be there, but they said what they intended to say. And that is also why those are concerned because the wording that was made public is ambiguous. Now you do not have to agree, and that is up to you, but others have concerns based on this very point you just made. I choose not to dismiss those concerns because you feel differently.