Concussion Rule in Ohio

[HLin NC]

And you know he was very groggy by......a) being there talking to him?
b) Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend?
c) Super duper Aquaman-like telepathic communication?
d) Watched it on STO and heard an announcer in the booth tell you on your telly.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

b) Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend?.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw him pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

[ajmc]

This same concern comes up regularly warning about all sorts of calamities, but the bottom line is that not a whole lot, if anything, has changed, other than we're asked, and therefore expected, to be more vigilant.

NFHS 3-5-10 covers our responsibilities. The key phrase is in 3-5-10-a; "An apparently injured player is discovered by a game official.......sets the tone. Recognizing we are NOT medical professionals, the bar for generating concern, is set rather low. "Apparently injured" doesn't require a lot of diagnostic expertise and seems more a "common sense" guide.

For whatever reason, if an official doesn't like the way a player acts, behaves looks or otherwise raises concern for a players physical condition, he is authorized and encouraged to remove the player from the contest for evaluation by a medical professional, who will render a diagnosis and is responsible to decide if that player is medically fit to continue participating.

If in what should be a [U]"rare" exception [/U]the player authorized to return, continues to raise an officials concern, he is authorized to require reevaluation, to the point where concern is eliminated. Could that lead to overly anxious abuse? Possibly, but extremely doubtful.

In what should be the rarest of circumstances, where for some reason an official seriously rejects the medical decision of the designated medical personnel, can the official insist on additional clarification? Being right isn't always easy, but if there is serious enough concern, being right is correct

3-5-10-b focuses on symptoms common to "Concussions" and calls for additional scrutiny by officials and enhanced reactions to have a suspected player observed quickly, and raises the requirements for the player returning. Once again, if a player is certified to return, and continues to exhibit symptoms alarming an official, he is authorized to refer the player for additional evaluation.

The bottom line, sometimes difficult to remember is that we are charged with acting responsibly about the potential health and well being of children. Even after staying in a Holiday Inn Express, we are not medical professionals and in all but the absolute rarest of circumstances, should the medical professionals responsible for the game we are officiating, somehow, be unable to relieve our medical concerns and persuade us that their expertise is superior to our concerns, we should do what's right.

At some point early in this dispute, I would suggest seeking guidance from crew members to help evaluate your concerns.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This same concern comes up regularly warning about all sorts of calamities, but the bottom line is that not a whole lot, if anything, has changed, other than we're asked, and therefore expected, to be more vigilant.

NFHS 3-5-10 covers our responsibilities. The key phrase is in 3-5-10-a; "An apparently injured player is discovered by a game official.......sets the tone. Recognizing we are NOT medical professionals, the bar for generating concern, is set rather low. "Apparently injured" doesn't require a lot of diagnostic expertise and seems more a "common sense" guide.

For whatever reason, if an official doesn't like the way a player acts, behaves looks or otherwise raises concern for a players physical condition, he is authorized and encouraged to remove the player from the contest for evaluation by a medical professional, who will render a diagnosis and is responsible to decide if that player is medically fit to continue participating.

If in what should be a [U]"rare" exception [/U]the player authorized to return, continues to raise an officials concern, he is authorized to require reevaluation, to the point where concern is eliminated. Could that lead to overly anxious abuse? Possibly, but extremely doubtful.

In what should be the rarest of circumstances, where for some reason an official seriously rejects the medical decision of the designated medical personnel, can the official insist on additional clarification? Being right isn't always easy, but if there is serious enough concern, being right is correct

3-5-10-b focuses on symptoms common to "Concussions" and calls for additional scrutiny by officials and enhanced reactions to have a suspected player observed quickly, and raises the requirements for the player returning. Once again, if a player is certified to return, and continues to exhibit symptoms alarming an official, he is authorized to refer the player for additional evaluation.

The bottom line, sometimes difficult to remember is that we are charged with acting responsibly about the potential health and well being of children. Even after staying in a Holiday Inn Express, we are not medical professionals and in all but the absolute rarest of circumstances, should the medical professionals responsible for the game we are officiating, somehow, be unable to relieve our medical concerns and persuade us that their expertise is superior to our concerns, we should do what's right.

At some point early in this dispute, I would suggest seeking guidance from crew members to help evaluate your concerns.

However, the rules are overridden by the law in Ohio. An apparently concussed player may not participate further that day regardless of medical evaluation and may only return after that day after being cleared by a doctor. I didn't see the game in question, but if you can tell from the video or the stands that a player was apparently concussed, it seems likely that the law was broken. If that is the case, the coaches and the officials could find themselves in some legal trouble.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

However, the rules are overridden by the law in Ohio. An apparently concussed player may not participate further that day regardless of medical evaluation and may only return after that day after being cleared by a doctor. I didn't see the game in question, but if you can tell from the video or the stands that a player was apparently concussed, it seems likely that the law was broken. If that is the case, the coaches and the officials could find themselves in some legal trouble.

How can anyone watching a video (or watching from the stands) know what an official personally observed? How can anyone watching a video (or watching from the stands) know what a coach, doctor, or trainer personally observed or what communication took place between the parties involved?

The law in Ohio pertains to once a player is sent out. What happens before he is sent out is no different than anywhere else. If we observe the behavior, signs or symptoms, we send them out. If someones else observes the same, they sit them out.

Nobody can tell without a doubt what truly took place on that field/sideline.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by asdf

How can anyone watching a video (or watching from the stands) know what an official personally observed? How can anyone watching a video (or watching from the stands) know what a coach, doctor, or trainer personally observed or what communication took place between the parties involved?

The law in Ohio pertains to once a player is sent out. What happens before he is sent out is no different than anywhere else. If we observe the behavior, signs or symptoms, we send them out. If someones else observes the same, they sit them out.

Nobody can tell without a doubt what truly took place on that field/sideline.

No, the Ohio law starts with the duty to send him out. It also requires a certain level of training in regards to recognizing the apparent symptoms of a concussion.

If apparent symptoms of a concussion are obvious enough that they are observable from video, it at least suggests either a certain amount of willful blindness to those symptoms or an inadequate amount of situational awareness by those on the field and the sidelines. Either of these puts those involved in danger of effective legal action.

You don't have to be able to tell without a doubt what happened. The relevant standard is going to be the preponderance of the evidence.

[bigjohn]

Anyone who saw him attended to by the trainers and saw him come out of the game, could see he was being checked for concussion type symptoms. Did he have a concussion, I have no idea, was there a question of his injury? yes. Doesn't the rule say if anyone removes him from the game for possible concussion, he is done for the day?

I don't agree with the rule or like it but it is State Law.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No, the Ohio law starts with the duty to send him out. It also requires a certain level of training in regards to recognizing the apparent symptoms of a concussion.

The duty to send him out is only kicks in when the official observes the symptoms. (or coach, trainer, doctor, administrator...etc)

What you saw may be different than what an official saw.

In the end, you may be 100% correct that the player was concussed. However you cannot prove what anyone saw with their own eyes.