NFHS Rules Changes
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Bob Colgate

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (February 23, 2010) — Effective with the 2010 high school football season, any player who shows signs, symptoms or behaviors associated with a concussion must be removed from the game and shall not return to play until cleared by an appropriate health-care professional.

The concussion rule was one of 12 changes approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee at its meeting last month in Indianapolis. The rule changes subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The previous rule directed officials to remove an athlete from play if “unconscious or apparently unconscious.” The previous rule also allowed for return to play based on written authorization by a medical doctor. 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.

“Given that the vast majority of concussions do not include a loss of consciousness, but that athletes often show obvious evidence of concussion, the NFHS Sports Medicine Advisory Committee (SMAC) strongly believes that officials must continue to be empowered to remove these athletes from play, thus protecting them from further injury,” said Dr. Michael Koester, chair of the SMAC. “Continued participation in any sport following a concussion can lead to worsening concussion symptoms, as well as increased risk for further injury to the brain and even death.

“The safety of the athlete is of paramount concern during any athletic contest. Officials, coaches and administrators are being asked to make all efforts at ensuring that concussed athletes do not continue to participate. Thus, coaches, players and administrators should also be looking for signs of concussion in all athletes and should immediately remove any suspected concussed athlete from play.”

In addition to football, the new concussion language is being placed in all NFHS rules books for the 2010-11 season, as well as the “NFHS Suggested Guidelines for Management of Concussion.”

Among the other changes were four pertaining to equipment, two dealing with player conduct, one concerning penalty options on scoring plays and three others in Rule 3 dealing with periods, time factors and substitution.

“The NFHS Football Rules Committee continues to focus its primary efforts toward maintaining the highest level of player safety,” said Julian Tackett, executive assistant commissioner of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association and chair of the NFHS Football Rules Committee. “This is evidenced by several rule changes related to equipment and concussions that were approved for 2010 following review by the NFHS SMAC. The rules of the game are in very good order and our members felt that no substantial changes were necessary beyond our emphasis on the health and welfare of the high school student-athlete.”

Among the equipment changes was approval of a new football glove/hand pad standard for the 2012 season. Beginning in 2012, gloves, which may be anchored with athletic tape and even though modified, must meet the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) test standards at the time of manufacture.

Other equipment changes include removal of restrictions on penalty-marker colored pads or gloves; revisions in the padding rule for guards, casts and braces; and clarification of the illegal player equipment rule.

In Rule 9-4-3k, the committee approved a clarification to the horse-collar rule. The wording in the definition of a horse-collar was changed to address situations when player possession was lost or the ball became dead by rule after the back or side of the jersey collar/shoulder pads were grasped.

“Under the previous rule, if the horse-collar occurred inbounds, but the tackle was completed out of bounds, in the end zone or after a loss of player possession, a horse-collar foul could not be called as the player was no longer a runner,” said Bob Colgate, NFHS assistant director and liaison to both the Football Rules Committee and the SMAC. “The wording was modified to ensure that a horse-collar foul could be called even if the runner no longer had possession of the ball or the ball became dead by rule.”

In Rule 8-2, six existing articles were refined and a new article created regarding fouls on scoring plays that have succeeding spot enforcement. Colgate said the changes now give both teams the same options when a non-player or unsportsmanlike conduct foul is committed during a down in which a touchdown is scored.

In other changes, the point differential rule by state adoption was modified to allow state associations to terminate a game at any point once the point differential is reached. Previously, the end of the first half was the earliest termination of a game by rule. In Rule 3-2-2, coin toss provisions were revised to state that no more than four captains per team can be on the field of play for the coin toss. In Rule 3-7-1, the committee revised the timeframe for replacing players from “immediately” to “within three seconds.”

Finally, the rules committee altered field markings in nine-, eight- and six-player football. All players who participated in the previous down and all substitutes must be momentarily between the 7-yard marks if they play on regulation 80-yard fields.

Points of emphasis adopted by the NFHS Football Rules Committee for the 2010 season include concussion recognition and management, heat illness and hydration, illegal helmet contact, assisting the runner, sportsmanship and public-address announcers, and NFHS Football Officials Manual.

Football is the No. 1 participatory sport for boys at the high school level with 1,112,303 participants in the 2008-09 season, according to the High School Athletics Participation Survey conducted by the NFHS through its member state associations. In addition, the survey indicated there were 759 girls who played football in 2008-09.





###



About the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS)

The NFHS, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, is the national leadership organization for high school sports and fine arts activities. Since 1920, the NFHS has led the development of education-based interscholastic sports and fine arts activities that help students succeed in their lives. The NFHS sets direction for the future by building awareness and support, improving the participation experience, establishing consistent standards and Rules for competition, and helping those who oversee high school sports and activities. The NFHS writes playing Rules for 17 sports for boys and girls at the high school level. Through its 50 member state associations and the District of Columbia, the NFHS reaches more than 19,000 high schools and 11 million participants in high school activity programs, including more than 7.5 million in high school sports. As the recognized national authority on interscholastic activity programs, the NFHS conducts national meetings; sanctions interstate events; produces publications for high school coaches, officials and athletic directors; sponsors professional organizations for high school coaches, officials, spirit coaches, speech and debate coaches and music adjudicators; serves as the national source for interscholastic coach training; and serves as a national information resource of interscholastic athletics and activities. For more information, visit the NFHS Web site at NFHS | National Federation of State High School Associations.

Once NFHS insurance rates soar because officials are being sued for allowing players showing "obvious" signs of a concussion to play, this rule might be changed. :rolleyes:

I'm all for player safety, but this one has me scratching my head.

I think most officials who observed a player who lost consciousness, was noticibly dizzy, was obviously confused about his surroundings, had trouble maintaining balance or complained of headache has had no problem sending that player out of the game for years.

What this rule change seems to do is put a lot more emphasis and responsibility on who who is going to evaluate the player and decide fitness BEFORE sending him back into the game.

We've heard rumors this is coming to basketball, too. I don't mind making the decision when I think they've lost consciousness, but I'm not trained to recognize a concussion. I was hoping they wouldn't put it on the officials, because you can bet your a$$ as soon as a player gets a concussion the parents are going to sue the official if he didn't tell the coach he couldn't play.

Exactly. Which means that every player who gets a little bump on the head will be done for the night.

Actually, their motivation is to keep THEM (the NF) from being sued, not you or I.

As an attorney, I would be extremely concerned about this, so much to the point where I *might* advise a client not to officiate in games played under these rules. If you work 40 games a year, you are bound to have 4-6 concussions. How many of those did you know about? How many kept playing?

This is insane. I sure hope the NCAA doesn't do this.

Points of emphasis adopted by the NFHS Football Rules Committee for the 2010 season include concussion recognition and management, heat illness and hydration, illegal helmet contact, assisting the runner, sportsmanship and public-address announcers, and NFHS Football Officials Manual.


IHC, imagine that! Assisting the runner? As in Rule 9-1? Helping the Runner?


If they had added illegal equipment(adornments) I would have gotten my Trifecta!!!!!!!!

Now that the Fed has, I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA follows suit, especially since it is already being considered. Think we'll see this in basketball for this year's rule changes?

In Rule 3-7-1, the committee revised the time frame for replacing players from “immediately” to “within three seconds.”
:)

Yes, it states in the release that they're putting it the rules for all sports. Track officials are not off the hook.

I missed that earlier. Yikes.

I said this on the other board. This thing about concussions is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard from the NF committee. We are supposed to decide if someone with a helmet on has a headache.

When I was in high school I had two teammates get concussions during the same game. One I could not tell he was concussed at all until we had a discussion about a class and an assignment. When he repeated what he said I felt there were something wrong and alerted doctors. The other individual was very much hurt but there was no event in the game that alerted anyone. I also reported this to the trainers and made it clear his condition was an issue. Neither of these I would be able to identify easily on the field of play as they both were found out by conversations and this was long before the media concerns and issues on this topic.

This is a very bad decision and they might have to deal with this in court to change their stance.

Peace

Funny you say this. I had a basketball game on TV this past Saturday and there were two teammates that ran into each other. I was the covering official and I did not know they bumped heads at all. One of the players was down and stayed down. I did not know until I saw the replay at home that the kids bumped heads. The kid stayed down for awhile and I believe he came back into the game. I stayed away as the medical people came out onto the floor almost immediately and they were checking on him. Now this is basketball where players do not have helmets and other devices covering their heads. And I could not tell or did not try to do more than I am normally asked to do based on the fact that that is for the medical people and coach to decide. Now the player was laying face down and it was not easy to tell why he was down at the time. This is bad on so many levels, but I have stated that before.

Peace

I'll be curious to see what sort of guidance we get from the state and/or the NFHS on how to actually go about enforcing this one.

I'm less than thrilled. Do we cover our butts and remove anyone with any sort of sign only to incur the wrath of the coaching staffs? And just what qualifies as an appropriate "health care professional" anyway? Doctor? Nurse? EMT? Does the team trainer know anything beyond tapes and sprains?

"Unconscious or apparently unconscious" was direct and more easily identifiable and the requirement to return was more restrictive.

Now, we must be capable of diagnosing the symptoms while the clearance to return has been "watered down" from a written authorization by a medical doctor to a clearance by "an appropriate health care professional", whatever that means.

How about this?
 

Anytime a player gets hit and goes the wrong way on a pattern we might need to go up to the coach and say he's out of the game until he gets a note from a doctor because he was hit and seemed "confused" afterwards.:)

Points of emphasis
 

It would be nice if they were serious about helmet contact (Tebow v Kentucky) and who has ever seen "helping the runner called"?

Helmet contact has been a POE before.

I've actually called helping the runner but it was during a scrimmage. It was also a case of a big lineman picking up his tiny running back and throwing him into the endzone. Hard to ignore that one.

I called it in 2008. I cannot speak for the play you are referencing, but there is a difference in "helping the runner" and "pushing the pile." Not the same things.

Peace

The specific wordage of the final rule is certainly critical, but the announcement relates to the same type general observations currently included in NF: 3-5-10, with special attention paid to obvious symptomes of a possible concussion. There are no "diagnosis requirements" included in this revision, at least as currently presented.

I presume most officials have, for years, considered a player that was visibly dizzy, incoherent, unable to balance himself or was complaining of headache as removeable or other observations pertaining to a possible concussion, cause for removing a player under provisions of 3-5-10-a. At times, some Coaches have questioned such decisions, but to absolutely no avail as the matter is totally beyond their control or authority.

This revision clearly places the responsibility of having an "appropriate health care professional" squarely on the team, not on the officials, to determine if, and when, a player is fit to re-enter the contest.

This revision simply calls attention to the reality that we are participants in a competitive, school-sponsored physical activity exercise and not a matter of such importance that would justify risking potential long term health threats to the student athlete participants.

It deems significance of a players impact on potential score, potential outcome of the contest, potential record breaking or scholarship offers are simply not of equal concern to potential long term health risk.

So a player gets his bell rung and sent out of the game one week, how does the crew for that team's game the following week know not to allow that player to participate if the coach doesn't have the written clearence from a health care perso?

Unless I am mistaken, the rule address a single contest, just the same as before the rule change. We won't know the official wording until the editors get done with them.

There has to be some inherent presumption that the player's school has a legitimate interest in that player's health and well being, and will act accordingly. Confidence that had medical personnel come to a conclusion that the player should not suit up for that subsequent game, the appropriate school authorities would live up to their responsibilities and see that the medical interests of the player are considered most important.

It is way beyond the jurisdiction or authority of game officials to determine who is eligible to play in ANY contest. I doubt anyone has any interest in going there.

New Rule for 2015
 

All varsity football official crews will be required to have 1 each of the following professions

1. Doctor to diagnose possible concussions
2. Lawyers to handle potential liability litigations
3. Publicist to explain everything to the media
4. Policeman for crowd control
5. Fashion Designer to tell us the difference between penalty flag colored gloves and/or hand pads
6. and of course a priest to excise a few demons etc.

Maybe officials should be invited to this as well.

http://www.ohsaa.org/medicine/Sports...y%20Course.pdf

Question...Let's say a kid gets really rocked in the 1st quarter, and goes off. The only "appropriate health-care professional" there is an EMT that says he's fine after a few minutes. The kid comes back in, and it's clear he's not "fine." What's to prevent us telling the coach he's not coming back no matter what the EMT says. If it's going to be our butts flapping in the breeze if and when a lawsuit comes, why can't we protect ourselves that way? Just a thought.

I appreciate your concern, Bob, but it's just not your job. The responsibility for determining who is a an "appropriate health care professional" doesn't seem like it's going to be assigned to the game officials. Do you really anticipate a player being so obviously incapable of returning, after being examined by the medical personnel, that you would be that concerned?

However, if you do, I don't see anything stopping you frrom sending him right back out for evaluation again, and again, and again, but you'd be doing so anticipating a lot of heat.

Here is why this policy is silly. I have a fellow church choir member that has a son that plays basketball. Apparently, her son hit his head during play and was fouled in the process. He went to the FT line without a single problem. Then after the game (several minutes later) her son claimed he could not see in the locker room after the game. He was diagnosed with a concussion. Now there is no way an official would come close to knowing this kid was hurt or had such an injury. The team did not notice at all until after the game. Now I am sure this is more common than most times, as it requires the officials to somehow use some judgment to know someone is hurt and then have the officials blamed if they do not recognize some signs. I still think the NF put responsibility on the last group of people that would have knowledge of many of these injuries. Remember we do not exam kids for what they are hurt for, so I do not know how we are going to be able to say clearly and consistently how a kid is hurt or not hurt. Even NFL players claim they have more concussions than they report at the time. Some will be very obvious, but many will not be. I am not worried about the obvious situations, I am concerned about the times they are not obvious and someone is going to wonder why we did not prevent a kid from playing.

Peace

Even when they ARE obvious, I'm not trained to know when a player has a concussion. Also, I have 4000 other things to worry about during a play and dead ball period than to check players for concussions. There is too much gray area. Should we send players out after every "hard" hit to be safe? I can't be worrying about who has a concussion and effectively manage a game at the same time. This is an asinine rule by the NFHS and should be repealed IMMEDIATELY.

I think if everyone writes their state interpreter in a professional manner, they may pull to put a ban on the rule for the following year, or at least a re-wording to pull the responsibility off the officials. Diagnosing concussions is not our job. PERIOD.

"a. Confused state – dazed look, vacant stare or confusion
about what happened or is happening."

Heck, our crew chief might have me on the side lines before our pregame is done.


... but seriously....

I don't see a problem with this. If something happens to one of these kids, and a coach mistakenly thinks it would be safe to just let the person set out a few plays and then come back in, we now have rule authority to remind the coach that's a dumb decision and that it is not allowed.

With all due respect, I think some are blowing a lot of unnecessary concern into this rule revision. Ignorant people will always wonder about things thay don't know about and some will say stupid things - so what. Ignoring ignorant people, and the stupid things that say, is part of our job description.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hold your horses!!!
 

Bossman72-
There were some pretty smart fellas representing both the medical and legal profession involved in the writing of this rule, yet neverless,
you have formed an conclusion and are attempting to 'round up a hangin possee without ever reading or reviewing the rule, the rationale, or viewing the accompaning slide show (with pictures) which explains the rule and the rationale in depth.

Perhaps you might just consider giving these fellas a chance to speak before forming an opinion and shooting them down based solely on the wording of a "Press Release?"

Just a thought!

How far in the hole must I be in order to have an opinion?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

Was this basketball?

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.

Huh?

No it was baseball or softball.

Peace

How the heck do you pay out when you win?:confused:

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.

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."

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.

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

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

"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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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?

Early signs of dehydration, heat cramps and heat stroke include the following. See anything in common?

fatigue
thirst
dry lips and tongue,
lack of energy
painful cramps
dizziness
nausea
vomiting
headaches
weakness
muscle pain
unconsciousness
seizures
disorientation or delirium
lack of sweating
shortness of breath
unconsciousness
coma

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?

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?

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.