CT High School - Referee Overrides Trainer?

[ctsoccer13]

We had our first High School game yesterday in Connecticut. One of our players took an inadvertent shoulder to her head and really got her bell rung. The trainer took a look at her and said she needed to stay off the field for awhile. In the meantime one of the referees comes over to me and says that she and the other referee have decided that the girl cannot re-enter the game again. In short, she said that the referees can override the position of the trainer and not let someone re-enter the game based on player safety. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? She could be mistaken, but that was her position on the matter. I can't see how a referee can make that decision since he/she has no medical training. That's why we have trainers in at all our games. We informed our Athletic Director about it and she said it was probably a mistake but she would check on it.

[DerbyRam54]

Perhaps the officials thought that your player had lost consciousness. In your words, she'd taken a hard blow to the head that had rung her bells. If a player has been "unconscious or apparently unconscious" then she can't re-enter the game without a physician's written authorisation (rule 3.3.2). Presumably your officials were being cautious and erring on the side of safety.

[cdin]

The referee is the one ultimately responsible for the health and safety of players involved in the game, and has the right to deny a player entry into the game if he believes that the player is compromises his own safety or the safety of the other players.

For example, I have seen players try to continue playing with an obviously broken arm. I have also seen Coaches and Trainers try to convince players to continue to play after a very serious knock.

It is hard to tell if this Ref was correct without seeing the situation but the ref does have the right.

[ctsoccer13]

Perhaps the officials thought that your player had lost consciousness. It was quite obvious she never lost consciousness (we are familiar with the rule and we, along with our trainer, STRICLY enforce that rule), and not to start a war, but how can someone who has little or no medical training override someone who is fully qualified to make the decision. I can believe that some coaches will push a player to go in while injured, but even if that is true, how can a referee make a purely subjective decision when a trained medical professional says the player is "OK"? Again, I'm not trying to egg anyone on, just fishing for input.

[refmike]

There has to be someone in final authority at the game and by definition, that is the referee. He can and should take input from others but the final decision is his. Where player safety or potential lawsuits are concerned, better safe than sorry. Perhaps it would be different if the trainer were a doctor and could sign a letter of release but short of that, the ref must protect the player and himself and has the authority to do so (per Law 5).

[ctsoccer13]

the ref must protect the player and himself and has the authority to do so (per Law 5).
I guess that's what I was looking for.

OK, wait, I'm editing this. I've now read Law 5 and as far as protecting himself, it clearly says that the referee is not liable for any injury suffered by a player, official or spectator. But, I see nothing in the rule about the safety of the player which is obviously a priority, so I can see your point there. For arguement's sake, how far can this be stretched? Can a referee refuse entry of a player that he thinks may have a pulled muscle to deter from a full tear? Or refusal because of a possible ligament tear?

[DerbyRam54]

Law 5 doesn't apply, you're playing under NFHS rules and as far as I can see there is no similar 'get out of jail' wording in those rules. Handling apparent concussions was a point of emphasis this year, which may explain the caution your officials displayed.

[njref]

Law 5 is nice and does say that a referee will not be held liable for injuries to players, etc. But FIFA and other private organizations do not have the authority to override state laws. I would think that Law 5 is pretty much worth nothing in a lawsuit. If a referee is liable for causing harm under state law, Law 5 is not going to overrule that state law. [USSF insurance, however, might be helpful.]

I don't know what various state laws provide as far as liability on the part of a referee. Maybe we should know this for our own good. But even if a referee does not have medical training, he or she does have a brain and some experience with injuries. I would think that a referee (if they could be held liable at all) would be at worst held to some "reasonable judgement" standard. So if a player looks like they should not be playing, use your reasonable judgment and don't let them play. No matter what the trainer or coach says.

[cdin]

For arguement's sake, how far can this be stretched? Can a referee refuse entry of a player that he thinks may have a pulled muscle to deter from a full tear? Or refusal because of a possible ligament tear?
As I said before the referee has the right to deny a player entry into the game if he believes that the player is compromises his own safety or the safety of the other players. So, yes technically a referee could deny entry for a muscle pull if he felt that the player was endangering his own safety by continuing to play.

Now, lets look at it realistically. I doubt that many, if any, referees would do that. If it did happen I would complain to the league or Assignor so that they could correct the ref if needed.

[refmike]

NJRef is correct.

The liability disclaimer is considered self serving and would likely be disregarded in any court. I was not referring to that when I invoked Law 5. I was referring to the first sentence giving the referee the final authority within the match. Add to that the item about stopping the match when a player is injured and the general fear of a lawsuit.

The bottom line is still "I am responsible so better be safe than sorry"

[Wreave]

The question is still an interesting one - may the referee not allow a player to continue based on the ref's own perception of the safety of the player? And if so, under what law? I know the original question was HS, but I'm asking re: FIFA/USSF.

That is, if I refuse to allow a player back on the field, and the coach/team protests the game, what will I say to the protest committee?

[cdin]

That is, if I refuse to allow a player back on the field, and the coach/team protests the game, what will I say to the protest committee?
That's easy. All you have to do is tell the truth. For example: "I didn't believe that it was safe for number 21 enter the game because...."

I don't understand what the big deal is here. I know it seems like the referee has a lot of power here to change the complection of the game, but this is no different than calling fouls in a bias manner. Very few if any referees are ever going to abuse this power.

[Wreave]

Don't take this personally, as it's not a slam, but that sounds to me like "It sounds fair but I don't have a shred of evidence to back it up."

Two contrasting examples:

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes that you unfairly denied them a goal. What happened?

Referee: An attacking player was pushed down by a defender inside the penalty area. I immediately blew my whistle for a PK. After I blew my whistle, the ball went into the goal. I conferred with my ARs and we all agreed that the whistle had blown prior to the ball entering the goal. The team then failed to convert the PK. The LOTG clearly state that if the ball enters the goal after the whistle is blown, a goal cannot be awarded.

Committee: You should have allowed Advantage, but you applied the LOTG correctly. The game stands.

---

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes you unfairly denied their star player reentry onto the field after an injury. What happened?

Referee: He got bumped in the head pretty hard. The trainer and coach both said he was OK to play, but I disagreed.

Committee: Why?

Referee: Because it didn't seem safe for that player.

Committee: Why not?

Referee: Because he got bumped on the head.

Committee: By what Law, ATR point, or memo did you refuse entry to this player based on your medical opinion of his condition?

Referee: Um...

Committee: Don't make it up as you go along. The protest stands.

[Wahoos1]

Don't take this personally, as it's not a slam, but that sounds to me like "It sounds fair but I don't have a shred of evidence to back it up."

Two contrasting examples:

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes that you unfairly denied them a goal. What happened?

Referee: An attacking player was pushed down by a defender inside the penalty area. I immediately blew my whistle for a PK. After I blew my whistle, the ball went into the goal. I conferred with my ARs and we all agreed that the whistle had blown prior to the ball entering the goal. The team then failed to convert the PK. The LOTG clearly state that if the ball enters the goal after the whistle is blown, a goal cannot be awarded.

Committee: You should have allowed Advantage, but you applied the LOTG correctly. The game stands.

---

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes you unfairly denied their star player reentry onto the field after an injury. What happened?

Referee: He got bumped in the head pretty hard. The trainer and coach both said he was OK to play, but I disagreed.

Committee: Why?

Referee: Because it didn't seem safe for that player.

Committee: Why not?

Referee: Because he got bumped on the head.

Committee: By what Law, ATR point, or memo did you refuse entry to this player based on your medical opinion of his condition?

Referee: Um...

Committee: Don't make it up as you go along. The protest stands.


"the player in question recieved a shoulder to her head. She fell to the ground and I immediately blew my whistle and waved on personel as she was did not appear to be moving. By the time I arrived from the bottom of the center circle she had begun moving a hand to her head. While I cannot confirm that she was unconcious, it is my belief that she was momentarily unconcious due to no movement for 3-4 seconds. I would not allow her to re-enter prior to a fully qualified MD providing a safe clearence for this player. With no MD on hand to provide this, I followed Federation rules."

Bottom line, you err on the side of saftey, espeically when youth are involved. I am betting that this player was a high end team member or this would be a non-issue....

[Wahoo]

Don't take this personally, as it's not a slam, but that sounds to me like "It sounds fair but I don't have a shred of evidence to back it up."

Two contrasting examples:

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes that you unfairly denied them a goal. What happened?

Referee: An attacking player was pushed down by a defender inside the penalty area. I immediately blew my whistle for a PK. After I blew my whistle, the ball went into the goal. I conferred with my ARs and we all agreed that the whistle had blown prior to the ball entering the goal. The team then failed to convert the PK. The LOTG clearly state that if the ball enters the goal after the whistle is blown, a goal cannot be awarded.

Committee: You should have allowed Advantage, but you applied the LOTG correctly. The game stands.

---

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes you unfairly denied their star player reentry onto the field after an injury. What happened?

Referee: He got bumped in the head pretty hard. The trainer and coach both said he was OK to play, but I disagreed.

Committee: Why?

Referee: Because it didn't seem safe for that player.

Committee: Why not?

Referee: Because he got bumped on the head.

Committee: By what Law, ATR point, or memo did you refuse entry to this player based on your medical opinion of his condition?

Referee: Um...

Committee: Don't make it up as you go along. The protest stands.

How about ATR --- Law 18 -- Common Sense
"Law 18, still unwritten but frequently quoted as the ultimate goal of refereeing: 'intelligence in the perception of the game, the attitude of the players, the place and the moment of the offense' (Michel Vautrot, FIFA Referee Committee, FIFA Magazine, June 1997"

Also you are changing the situation in your mock hearing.
You wouldn't have disallowed someone from playing because they got bumped on the head, but because they were seriously injured and it looked like a significant injury though I cannot confirm that they were unconcious. Neither the trainer nor the coach are medical professionals and even had they been, no medical examination was performed. I deemed the initial injury significant and was concerned for the players safety as they didn't seem fit to continue without an increased concern for their safety.

[OhRef]

Originally Posted by Wreave
Don't take this personally, as it's not a slam, but that sounds to me like "It sounds fair but I don't have a shred of evidence to back it up."

Two contrasting examples:

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes that you unfairly denied them a goal. What happened?

Referee: An attacking player was pushed down by a defender inside the penalty area. I immediately blew my whistle for a PK. After I blew my whistle, the ball went into the goal. I conferred with my ARs and we all agreed that the whistle had blown prior to the ball entering the goal. The team then failed to convert the PK. The LOTG clearly state that if the ball enters the goal after the whistle is blown, a goal cannot be awarded.

Committee: You should have allowed Advantage, but you applied the LOTG correctly. The game stands.

---

Committee: Mr. Referee, this game is being protested because the losing team believes you unfairly denied their star player reentry onto the field after an injury. What happened?

Referee: He got bumped in the head pretty hard. The trainer and coach both said he was OK to play, but I disagreed.

Committee: Why?

Referee: Because it didn't seem safe for that player.

Committee: Why not?

Referee: Because he got bumped on the head.

Committee: By what Law, ATR point, or memo did you refuse entry to this player based on your medical opinion of his condition?

Referee: Um...

Committee: Don't make it up as you go along. The protest stands.


"the player in question recieved a shoulder to her head. She fell to the ground and I immediately blew my whistle and waved on personel as she was did not appear to be moving. By the time I arrived from the bottom of the center circle she had begun moving a hand to her head. While I cannot confirm that she was unconcious, it is my belief that she was momentarily unconcious due to no movement for 3-4 seconds. I would not allow her to re-enter prior to a fully qualified MD providing a safe clearence for this player. With no MD on hand to provide this, I followed Federation rules."

Bottom line, you err on the side of saftey, espeically when youth are involved. I am betting that this player was a high end team member or this would be a non-issue....

I'll play devil's advocate.

Star player on team A (visiting team) receives an elbow on a challenge in the air and is knocked to the ground. He needs to be tended too by the trainer. The trainer is from the home team (team B). Team A player is injured but appears to the referee to be "ok" to resume play. The trainer looks at the injured star player and says he "may" have a concussion. The player is now not allowed to particpate under NFHS rules until he has a mdeical release from a qualified MD.
Is this a tactic that could happen?
What would you do as the referee?
I am in full agreement to err on the side of safety. IMO you must keep the players safety in mind regardless of whether you think they are ok or not.
I am just offering a different viewpoint and playing devils advocate here.

[KCbus]

On the referee liability part...

If a player is playing in a game sanctioned by a league that operates under FIFA rules, and FIFA rules state that a referee cannot be held liable for injuries...

...doesn't that mean that any player who participates in that league accepts that as part of the conditions going in?

On the main topic: If you're talking about youth matches, sure. Try to take action. But I can't see myself telling a player he can't go. I might consider pulling the coach aside and saying "Dude......." But once you get to higher levels... you're just a referee. You're not a doctor. I don't remember ever seeing a rule that states players must participate without broken bones or concussions.

[USSF REF]

I'll play devil's advocate.

Star player on team A (visiting team) receives an elbow on a challenge in the air and is knocked to the ground. He needs to be tended too by the trainer. The trainer is from the home team (team B). Team A player is injured but appears to the referee to be "ok" to resume play. The trainer looks at the injured star player and says he "may" have a concussion. The player is now not allowed to particpate under NFHS rules until he has a mdeical release from a qualified MD.
Is this a tactic that could happen?
What would you do as the referee?
I am in full agreement to err on the side of safety. IMO you must keep the players safety in mind regardless of whether you think they are ok or not.
I am just offering a different viewpoint and playing devils advocate here.

Now we have an ethical issue. That being the trainer abusing their position for the gain of the home team. Still, it is not up to the referee to be the judge of ethical conduct where it comes to medical personnel at the field. If the trainer says they think it was a concussion, you had better listen to them! If you fail to, it's your ass if they it turns out they were correct later and some further injury occured as a result. I would say report the details (all of them) to the league if you think that is what has happened.

On top of that - the Referee is under no obligation to allow a player to participate who they believe presents a risk to their own safety. The Referee is also permitted to protect themself from legal action and if they think the player is a safety risk to themself, the Referee would protect his own legal interest by preventing the player from playing.

Frankly, from a protest standpoint, the Referee would be on firm ground, as long as they explained their position clearly. But I would go another step further, I wouldn't allow a player who I felt was a danger to themself to play even if there was a 100% chance that the game would be ordered replayed... why? Becuase in the USA anything you do is a lawsuit waiting to happen, better to make them replay it then end up in court paying damages to someone who said they were OK and ended up with a headache, paralyzed or dead.

If the team insisted on playing the player by stating I had no grounds in the rules/laws, I would say "fine, you can do whatever you want, but I will be leaving now and this game will be considered terminated, I cannot stop her from playing the rest of this game, but I can choose to stop refereeing the match. It's your choice." While some of you may feel that approach is unethical or inappropriate, I cannot stress how important it is for a Referee to protect player's safety and your own legal standing.

The exception is if a Doctor or Nurse Practitioner or Phys. Asst. (you know the people who can persribe medication) gives a written release. Then it's their ass, not yours. A trainer is not bestowed with such power, a trainer has no requirement to pass any medical boards to fill that roll. Some trainers are just tape up boys, who are not yet graduated from college, some are more professional, but you never know what you will get. In that case, even if the trainer has some medical knowlege, in the eyes of the law YOU are responsible for the players safety, so you will have to be the one to make the decision, not a trainer.

[USSF REF]

Oh, and if I did walk away from the match if a team refused to NOT play the player in question - I would keep the fee, I am entitled to. If they demanded the pay back, then I would return it and invoice it to the league - who would still owe me the fee.

[Wahoo]

Just a quick comment concerning the worry of a lawsuit.

If a player was sent back into a game after a serious injury and was then hurt worse (lets not even think about loss of life or permanent injury)...

The ref would NOT be the first person sued.... or even attempted to be sued.

Any lawsuit would go after the coach and the trainer first and foremost.

If you're really worried about the situation and do not think that hte player should participate, remind the coach and the trainer about this little tidbit first... chances are they will rethink. If the 2 of them are STILL adamant about putting the player in the game and you as the ref are STILL adamant he/she shouldn't continue.... then I think you'd be able to support that decision.