Concussion Rule in Ohio

[CT1]

In our state, we are to remove the player & tell the head coach that we observed signs of possible concussion. After that, it's completely out of our hands.

[parepat]

Of all the following people: parent, doctor, trainer or coach, the official is the least appropriate to decide whether a player can play due to head injury. This might be the single most ridiculous piece of legislation I have ever read. If I am wise enough to overrule a brain surgeon, why am I only making sixty bucks a game?

[JRutledge]

All our state does is ask us to remove players from the game if they have concussion like symptoms. After that, a Medial Health Care Professional makes an evaluation. And those have to be designated by schools by law. And if they feel they do not have issues, they can allow them back in the game. We basically stay out of it other then report the incidents that take place to the State and the schools have to deal with the fall out. BTW, this is also a state law that the IHSA helped come up with so the schools take on the responsiblity legally more then we do.

It must be noted that many concussion symptoms are also symptoms of other things as well. I think Ohio is going to have a lot of kids taken out of games for other symptoms that clearly could be other things if this is on the officials to decide who comes out of the game.

Peace

[maven]

Originally Posted by parepat

Of all the following people: parent, doctor, trainer or coach, the official is the least appropriate to decide whether a player can play due to head injury.

Least appropriate in what respect? All the other people you mention are partial and have a rooting interest in keeping a potentially injured player in the game. The only impartial people on the field are the officials, and the law requires them to err on the side of safety.

That said, I don't like its implementation either. I don't want to defend a bad law, but the problem with it is not its rationale.

As for lawsuits, meh. Ohio's law doesn't increase our risk exposure significantly. When a player gets injured and the parents decide to sue, the lawyers will name every adult within reach: coaches, school administrators, the school board, the state athletic association, the officials on the field, and anyone else they can think of. You throw that stuff at everyone and see where it might stick.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by maven

Least appropriate in what respect? All the other people you mention are partial and have a rooting interest in keeping a potentially injured player in the game. The only impartial people on the field are the officials, and the law requires them to err on the side of safety.

That said, I don't like its implementation either. I don't want to defend a bad law, but the problem with it is not its rationale.

As for lawsuits, meh. Ohio's law doesn't increase our risk exposure significantly. When a player gets injured and the parents decide to sue, the lawyers will name every adult within reach: coaches, school administrators, the school board, the state athletic association, the officials on the field, and anyone else they can think of. You throw that stuff at everyone and see where it might stick.

Least appropriate in that we do not know the kid, so we don't have a baseline of knowledge on what "unusual" behavior is. Parents and coaches do have this knowledge. We have not received medical training similar to a trainer or doctor.

The underlying theme of this law is that we can't trust parents, coaches, trainers or doctors to protect our kids; and, therefore, we will put the duty on officials who have no expertise in either (a) the child (b) or concussion.

[maven]

Originally Posted by parepat

Least appropriate in that we do not know the kid, so we don't have a baseline of knowledge on what "unusual" behavior is. Parents and coaches do have this knowledge. We have not received medical training similar to a trainer or doctor.

The underlying theme of this law is that we can't trust parents, coaches, trainers or doctors to protect our kids; and, therefore, we will put the duty on officials who have no expertise in either (a) the child (b) or concussion.

"Unusual" behavior is not among the signs or symptoms of concussion listed in this post.

It is not about trust, it's about what happens to people with a rooting interest, who tend to see what they want to see. This is a well-known, well-documented psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by maven

"Unusual" behavior is not among the signs or symptoms of concussion listed in this post.

It is not about trust, it's about what happens to people with a rooting interest, who tend to see what they want to see. This is a well-known, well-documented psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias.

The legislature passed a law that subordinates the decision of a doctor, trainer, coach or parent to that of an official who watched a video.

You infer that the cause was noble. Was there an epidemic of doctors and trainers putting clearly concussed players back in games under the NFHS rule that necessitated a change in Ohio law.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by parepat

Was there an epidemic of doctors and trainers putting clearly concussed players back in games under the NFHS rule that necessitated a change in Ohio law.

Probably not, but you know how politicians are...they "have to do something" about the issue of the day.

And it's not just NFHS games. This law applies to every level of youth sports, from the YMCA 4-year-old programs to the Varsity high school level. (Which now makes me wonder if my son's volunteer coach and official did the required CDC or NFHS concussion training last fall).