Concussion risk

But that is not what the statute says. The Referee never determines that a player is fit to stay on the field. But if the coach or referee see "signs, symptoms, or behaviors" cosnistant with a concussion, the player is removed -- there is no diagnosis, there is cautinary removal. And the referee is protected from his actions in the absence of "willful or wanton misconduct." For those wanting insurance, check your state laws -- my understanding is that most states would not permit a policy to protect against willful or wanton misconduct, so referees appear to be liability free from anything that would be insurable.

IMHO, the sky is not falling. I do not think students are ill-served if another adult (who is unconcerned about the result of the game) has the ability to protect them from themselves and from coaches who might think having one's bell rung is just part of sports that can be toughed out. Of course it would be better to have a medical professional there, but this is the real world, where the two coaches and the referee may be the only adults at all at some games. And if referees are going to have the power to make cautionary removals, why wouldn't the state want them to have some kind of training? And the state mandated a level of training for coaches -- a level that would suffice for referees as well, but also gave refs two addtional options.

 

If this thread does just one thing, I hope it makes us as a group more aware of the symptoms of a concussion. As Poster Law 5 tells (and he knows about head injuries) coaches are not ogres in this fight either. In the past 5 years alone, i think the awareness of head injury has shot up by 1,000 per cent. My college playing daughter suffered one on a free kick last spring, and remained with symptoms for 4 months. Just be more aware.

 

all well and good Bubba but you cant post here anymore until we are sure you are not concussed.

 

The problem with the proposed law is, frankly, that it's a proposed law. It's simply not the state's job to step in here. Particularly since all it seems to be doing is making the current NFHS concussion rule into law for games that are already being played under the NFHS rules. It doesn't apply to USSF games as those aren't organized by a "school district board of education or governing authority of a chartered or nonchartered nonpublic school"

So if/when we find out the current NFHS rule isn't the best approach to concussions, the rest of the country will move on to the better approach while Ohio will be legally bound to the current approach.

 

I understand, and again I am sure this is all well intentioned and like I said who could possibly be against something that protects kids and possibly prevents serious or more serious injury. The problem will arise when a referee removes a player that says they are fine, the team loses, and the player is checked out to be perfectly fine.

Again well intentioned, but what training? A webinar? Something put together by one of the legislators buddies? 30 minutes in a recert or new referee class? Training that may be put together well and with much thought and preparation and for those seeing it all agreeing that it is good training. Much like referee training classes, right? Much time, thought, effort and expense goes into them, people attend, pass, get certified to referee and go to their first match and have no clue - miss all kinds of calls, wrong restarts, bad mechanics and all. After refereeing a few games they get better and after years of refereeing real matches, more recert classes, mentoring, and refereeing more real matches they only miss a few calls.

So now we are looking at training to recognize symptoms - easy enough until you get a teenager involved, I have 3 in my house and I am pretty sure they are all concussed based on behavior. I am in agreement that in most of the cases that we rationally talk about player safety that everyone agrees we err on the side of caution and a player sits, coaches and parents included - right?

How many of us have had to address wearing casts? A player has a broken bone set inside plaster so it heals properly. A medical professional decided that to make them whole they had to completely immobilize a part of someones body, and make it so they can't mess with it by encasing it in something that has to be sawn off. They are told 6 weeks minimum and what do they want to do? Run around with 21 other teenagers where they can fall on the broken arm, jarring it, and delaying the healing because it doesn't hurt and they want to play.

Does it make any sense for a player to play with a broken body part? Not even factoring the other players safety but the injured player, no it doesn't, yet they want to play and in high school if wrapped properly we have to allow them to.

So a kid takes a bump to the head, no bleeding, no lumps, head hurts a bit, they are fine and no one's the wiser (no outward evidence like a cast) and they play. Why would they not?

In a vacuum and even talking about it here amongst referees - many of you guys having years and years of experience - we agree that we should look after player safety, and even this concussion law makes sense in writing (or in theory). I'm talking about application in the near insane world of youth soccer where we have a parent on video going off on a young female referee about a U10 game.

Exactly, and well intentioned, right?

 

This is a tough one for me as both a ref and coach. I watched a U-12 match last year at a tournament where a coach and ref both completely mishandled a situation.

Ref does properly stops the match and calls the coach on, but the kid is clearly punch drunk. He insists he is fine and coach keeps him in and ref allows it to play on. Its not until the kid's mother (who had stepped away from the field for a moment)walks on to the field and pulls him off and took him to ER. He did have a concussion.

First fault was definitely to the coach, but the ref should have observed the condition of the player.

 

In NJ coaches need to complete a concussion awareness module to receive an F License. You cannot coach a travel team without the license so that means every coach is aware of the risks, should know to exercise caution, and have the appropriate materials on hand for parents when you hold a child out. I think the training would be useful for referees as well, but the referee's role is obviously quite different. At the very least, a good referee can pass on his concerns and remind the coach about the risks.I held one child out of the second half of a game, he turned out to be fine, and his parents were very supportive. Luckily this was different from what I've seen going to watch my daughter cheer at football games. The football parents and coaches are a bit nuts. I also overheard a parent boast about successfully berating the high school coach until he let her older son back into the the team after sitting out for three weeks. I'm glad my son choose soccer instead...

 

Also, FWIW, I've done the NFHS concussion awareness web seminar which is what this law would basically require us to do as referees. I found it to be lacking and had no information that we haven't received every year at the HS state rules meeting.

It is however free (or was when I took it last year).

 

Well, "confusion" is considered one of the symptoms of concussion. For most teenagers, that would be an upgrade in condition!

 

Sounds like typical legislation from grandstanding state politicians.

 

Yup, as the father of two former teens (both in 20's now), in order to be confused, they first have to realized they don't actually already know everything.