Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FutbolFanatic]

Word to the wise:  given how litigious our society has become, you definitely do not want to take an action for which there is no insurance coverage.  The $37.00 per game they pay (or whatever the salary is these days) is not worth the risk!  Stick with the WOA's advice!

The "action" here is refusing to let the player return to the game.  He took that action because of his concern for the health of the player.  Are you suggesting that our society is now so litigious that a referee is liable to be sued over denying a player the opportunity to play in a game?  Wow.

[Bathos]

So, while 'oneblindmouse' may have errored in overstepping his authority by sitting the player, the coach is violating the spirt and letter of the law.

You have created a strawman to deflect from the issue being discussed.  The issue was never about the coach.   If the coach failed to act appropriately, the school AD can take appropriate action, or the player's parents can take appropriate action via the legal system.  The issue I raised concerned the authority of a soccer referee to preclude a player from re-entering a match based on nothing more than the referee's opinion that the player was not medically ready to re-enter the match.

I haven't explained myself well.  What the law does is shield those who comply (via reading and signing the awareness forms, sitting those with suspected concussions, among other things) from liability due to concussion injuries.  Basically, in order to sue the coach the much higher burden of willful negligence must be proven.

The referee doesn’t fall under this protection since they’re not mentioned.  This exposes him to liability in the event of a concussion injury.   Sitting a player is vastly less risky.

It, the concussion law, isn't a matter of authority, it is a matter of liability.  Running afoul of personal injury liability law is a lot more serious than violating WOA authority.

[Oneblindmouse]

I appreciate your candor in acknowledging you failed to follow WOA protocol and guidelines.  Now, about the protest you suggested the coach would be a fool to file....

You indicated that "I never make the determination, I merely state that I am concerned, due to the player exhibiting one or more signs, and therefore am removing them from the game."  But that is not what you did.  You refused to allow the player to re-enter, which is what caught my attention (and apparently caught the coach's attention).  In refusing to allow the player to re-enter the game, you necessarily had to make a medically related decision.  You decided that the player was not medically "fit" to re-enter the game.  Here are your exact words:  "We said go right ahead, but your player is not stepping back on this field and we will be including the fact that you tried to sub back in a head injury."  You "diagnosed" the player as having suffered a "head injury."  My only point is that this is not your role.   

You indicated that:  "Having gained more experience, I will also let the coach sub the player back in, but I will also make sure to note that in my report."  Perfect.

Word to the wise:  given how litigious our society has become, you definitely do not want to take an action for which there is no insurance coverage.  The $37.00 per game they pay (or whatever the salary is these days) is not worth the risk!  Stick with the WOA's advice!

I am always trying to learn and do a better job with every game I work, every assessment I receive, and every training session I attend.  And you are correct, given today's out of control litigation I should really be asking myself whether or not I should even be reffing.  If a parent is willing to name me in a lawsuit because I denied re-entry to their child due to an apparent head injury, then it is just no longer worth it, period.

I think I am correct in assuming that you are not neccessarily having trouble with the "morality" of what I did, just the "legality", and my departure from official protocol?  In the LOTG Law 5 The Referee - Powers and Duties - bullet-points 7 & 8 address injuries to players, in which we are given the "power" to judge whether or not an injury is serious or only "slight" in our opinion.  We have also been told to treat any head injury as serious and therefore stop play immediatley.  So I do think that assessing an injury is within our role, can I say that they have a concussion or make a medical diagnose of fact, no, can I say that they have suffered a serious injury (ie; head injury), yes - in my opinion.   Was I, and the Ctr, correct to deny re-entry to the player, not according to the WOA advice, were we within our powers as referees, I believe so.

I think in the future, rather than just telling the coach that their player cannot re-enter the match, I will ask them if they really think that that is a good idea, seeing as how they left the field displaying symptoms of a concussion (as given to me in training by a medical professional).  I personally think the WOA's advice is nothing more than CYA and a bit chickens__t, but they are the bureaucrats, not me.

[Brat Jr]

so, if I am not there and my DD gets her bell rung and is allowed to go back into play and something bad happens, ya'll better CYA because I am going to be one PO'd momma!

If a referee cannot or will not protect my child on the pitch and her coach doesn't, who the hell will?
When does the friggen madness end?

I am glad oneblindmouse did what he did. THANKS! 

[sounderfan]

[PPPerfect]

My DD had a concussion 18 months ago.  She missed a lot of school because the noise would give her a headache, and the hallways would make her dizzy.  6 weeks she could not go in the gym because it made her nauseous.  This was from a kick and/or knee to the head while going for the ball as the keeper.

Please take concussions seriously,  if they get a knock to the head, take them out of the game and sit the bench.

 A teammate had a collision in a header a couple weeks ago.  The coach checked her out, said her eyes were ok, so she went back in the game.  She had a headache for a week, doctor said mild concussion.  She was in a game 10 days later and the coach is complaining that she wasn't heading the ball enough.  We need to protect these kids and get rid of the "win at all costs" kind of coaches!

[Otter]

Our most important job as coaches, managers, trainers, parents or referees is to keep the players safe.  In youth soccer this is even more important since these kids are depending upon us to do the right thing for them when it comes to injuries and especially the possibility of a concussion.  If we don't do our job to protect them then we have lost sight of an important aspect of the game: their health is more important then any game.

As a referee in all the games I've done (over 1,200 games, I stopped counting) I've seen my share of possible concussions and in all cases there was never an attempt to sub the player back into the game later on in either youth, school or adult games.  Coaches (or maybe the parents or the trainer or the manager or a teammate or maybe the player themself) have done their jobs and taken care of the player so I have not had to.  Oneblindmouse has not been so lucky but we should not be so quick to criticize him about this issue; he has only been faced with this issue because MAYBE the others have not done their jobs.

Yes I've seen the signs of a concussion first hand but I'm not a doctor and even if I was, it is not my role as a Referee to offer medical opinions.  I'll call the coach out to attend to their player and tell them to take as much time as they need, I can always add time.  
 

 

[plentyofgames]

So, while 'oneblindmouse' may have errored in overstepping his authority by sitting the player, the coach is violating the spirt and letter of the law.

You have created a strawman to deflect from the issue being discussed.  The issue was never about the coach.   If the coach failed to act appropriately, the school AD can take appropriate action, or the player's parents can take appropriate action via the legal system.  The issue I raised concerned the authority of a soccer referee to preclude a player from re-entering a match based on nothing more than the referee's opinion that the player was not medically ready to re-enter the match.

I haven't explained myself well.  What the law does is shield those who comply (via reading and signing the awareness forms, sitting those with suspected concussions, among other things) from liability due to concussion injuries.  Basically, in order to sue the coach the much higher burden of willful negligence must be proven.

The referee doesn’t fall under this protection since they’re not mentioned.  This exposes him to liability in the event of a concussion injury.   Sitting a player is vastly less risky.

It, the concussion law, isn't a matter of authority, it is a matter of liability.  Running afoul of personal injury liability law is a lot more serious than violating WOA authority.

Your conclusion that it's less risky to sit the player is correct, but that's not what the Lystedt law says. RCW 28A.600.190(4) shields volunteer health care providers who authorize the return from liability absent gross negligence or willful misconduct. It doesn't say anything about coaches or parents or referees. Section 3 of the law says if a player is suspected of having a concussion the player shall be removed from play. The word "shall" means there is no choice. Section 4 requires written clearance to return - the law says "may not return." The written authorization must be from a licensed health care practitioner with training in the evaluation and management of concussions. In other words, if a concussion is suspected, then the kid isn't going back in absent written authorization. There's no safe harbor for a coach, or a parent or anyone else who let's a kid with a suspected concussion back in the game (unless by some chance the coach, parent etc also happens to be a licenses health care professional with the required training). The safe harbor is limited to the volunteer health care practitioner who gives the clearance. In other words, the health care practitioner who exercises reasonable judgment, even if it proves to be wrong, isn't liable. The health care practitioner who looks the other way, or doesn't do an exam, doesn't have the required training, (i.e., is grossly negligent), is not protected.

With respect to litigation risk. Once the injury is suspected, the law is triggered. Period. That's a lot of risk if you chose to ignore it. The risk of not putting a kid back in is miniscule. First, a plaintiff would need to prove there was no basis to suspect the injury. Suspected is a pretty low standard. Then the plaintiff would have to prove damages. What are the damages? Not finishing a game? Losing? I suppose somebody might file such a case, but it wouldn't be much of a case. I don't think any lawyer would take it on contingency.

From the referee's perspective, if a kid goes out with a suspected concussion and there's nobody on the sideline but the coach and the parent, I'd think twice as a referee about letting a kid come back in where it's apparent that there hasn't been an examination or written authorization to return. That's called looking the other way. Following the an association's guidelines won't be very convincing defense when there's a brain injured plaintiff sitting at the table next to you with damages potentially greater than the liability insurance limits.

[dogedog]

How many concussions is to many? 

I know of a player who has had at least 4 concussions in the last year and a half even wearing head gear.  I just know no matter how good my DD is ODP, college offers the whole picture she would be done playing. 

I do not understand this kids parents. 

[Futsal]

.

[plentyofgames]

The purpose of the law is to protect kids from being sent back out on the field when they've suffered a head injury and it provides "good samaritan" protection for volunteer health care providers with the required training. Here's the legislature's statement of purpose in the law:

(1)     (c) Continuing to play with a concussion or symptoms of head injury leaves the young athlete especially vulnerable to greater injury and even death. The legislature recognizes that, despite having generally recognized return to play standards for concussion and head injury, some affected youth athletes are prematurely returned to play resulting in actual or potential physical injury or death to youth athletes in the state of Washington.

Here's the mandate, and the protection afforded trained volunteer health care providers:

(3) A youth athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion or head injury in a practice or game shall be removed from competition at that time.

(4) A youth athlete who has been removed from play may not return to play until the athlete is evaluated by a licensed health care provider trained in the evaluation and management of concussion and receives written clearance to return to play from that health care provider. The health care provider may be a volunteer. A volunteer who authorizes a youth athlete to return to play is not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such care, other than acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

The law actually creates a very high standard of care for anybody else involved in the decision as to whether there is a suspected head injury and whether a player goes back in.  Participants usually sign releases as a condition of participation in HS and other sports. I don't recall whether under Washington law a release from liability would avoid liability for a claim based on the violation of this statute.

[Futsal]

.

[basketballdad]

Two comments. First, I can tell you what we were told as basketball officials. We do not have the authority to question whether a player has been cleared or not. Once they are set off it is the coaches responsibility to follow appropriate protocols to get authorization. I raised the question of what are our options as officials if we believe they are still being impacted physically. The response was that we are authorized to send a player off anytime we suspect an injury. It was suggested that we have a quick conversation with the player and if we suspect we can send them off again. Or if we see any symptoms that migh lead us to believe they are still experiencing symptoms we can send them off. (dizziness, unsteadiness, confusion, etc., etc.) Theoretically the coach has to go through the protocols again. We mark it in the officials scorers book each time. I am not sure what the options are in soccer but I think I could do the same thing. Hopefully the coach gets the hint.

Second note has to do with a comment earlier. See below.
 
last nights game 4 girls from our team were helped off the team by the coach. Only one returned. Now we have 8 varsity players injured. One is a knee injury, one took an elbow to the head and not sure how that will turn out... our keep was taken out by the opposing teams forward and her arm was hurt but she returned to play and the last one was the worst... player not even involved in a play... takes an elbow to her nose... its turned sideways and blood gushing out. No card for the girl who did it...but.... get this.... she is hysterical and lets out an F bomb while the blood is flowing.... Ref gives HER a red card. Wow...just wow. Not sure if there will be a concussion in this group. Possibly with the first head injury.  Its getting rough out there.

I have a much different perspective on this game as I was at it. The keeper injury was her fault and there should have been a no call. A forward broke on a long kick from her side. She was onside and had a lead from the last defender. She was looking back tracking the ball when the keeper came out of the box. She saw the forward and then began tracking the ball herself. The ball landed between the two players and neither gained possession. However, as the forward turned there was no time and there was a full speed collision. I think the call was more of a reaction to the result than the incident as there was a significant time period before any call. The first head injury occurred when a an offensive player was going to head the ball. A defender came up hard and leaped toward the back of the offensive player who has no idea there was anyone behind her. The offensive player headed the ball backward over her head. The defender who was leading with her head from behind got hit and went down. There was no call as there should not have been. Finally, the last injury the players was involved in the play. She did exactly what the previous defender did and came from behind on a header. She led with her head and unfortunately when the offensive player headed it backward she got hit in the face. She did not go down but held her nose. She stood there for a few seconds and then the ball went out by her. She said something to the official which got her a yellow card. Instead of settling down she thew out an F word loud enough for all of us to hear. Red card came out. I would say that the girls need to learn not lead with their head from behind and there would have been no injuries.

[plentyofgames]

We were referring to different sections of the code. The law I was referring to was the Lystedt law, RCW 28A.600.190 and the statute you cite, RCW 4.24.660 is a special immunity statute which does protect school districts, but in a pretty limited way. It does, however, keep the risk managers from making school athletic facilities off limits for outside activities. That's a good thing. I think your question about for profit vs. non-profit is an interesting one. For an immunity statute for a school district it shouldn't make any difference whether the youth sports provider is for profit or non-profit. Plus, the required liability limits are really low. There are a lot of "non-profits" that are far more "profitable" than for profit corporations. The immunity provided by section RCW 4.24.660 appears limited to theories like negligent entrustment, or a failure to supervise. The statute provides no immunity for unsafe conditions to the grounds themselves.

[Futsal]

.

[FutbolFanatic]

edit

[plentyofgames]

We were referring to different sections of the code. The law I was referring to was the Lystedt law, RCW 28A.600.190 and the statute you cite, RCW 4.24.660 is a special immunity statute which does protect school districts, but in a pretty limited way. It does, however, keep the risk managers from making school athletic facilities off limits for outside activities. That's a good thing. I think your question about for profit vs. non-profit is an interesting one. For an immunity statute for a school district it shouldn't make any difference whether the youth sports provider is for profit or non-profit. Plus, the required liability limits are really low. There are a lot of "non-profits" that are far more "profitable" than for profit corporations. The immunity provided by section RCW 4.24.660 appears limited to theories like negligent entrustment, or a failure to supervise. The statute provides no immunity for unsafe conditions to the grounds themselves.

http://www.sportsconcussions.org/Documents/1824-SL-Legislation.pdf

The billed passed amended 4.24.660 and created RCW 28.A.600.190

Agree. What's the point? The bill dealt with two separate sections of the code: Chapter 4 and Chapter 28. The Lystedt law, codified in Chapter 28 was enacted to protect kids. RCW 28A.600.190 is the Lystedt law, not RCW 4.24.660. I think that's what I said. Section 1 created the safe harbor provision for school districts. It's really just semantics at this point isn't it?

[Futsal]

.

[sounderfan]

http://www.northernweekly.com.au/news/local/sport/general/is-concussion-more-dangerous-for-girls/2333599.aspx

For girls...

“I don’t remember the game at all,” says the 18-year-old of her concussion in August. “I was defending an opponent … she fell to the ground on top of me, and I hit my head. I stumbled up and I remember being nauseous and delirious in the change rooms afterwards. I was repeating myself over and over.”

But did Bontempelli’s gender contribute to her injury? A US study released by the Journal of Athletic Training showed that girls (of high school or university age) who played basketball or soccer suffered significantly more concussions than their male counterparts. It also showed that boys returned to play sooner than girls after suffering a concussion.

[MarkyMark]

The Question I have is where is the Responsibility and Accountability of the Referee's in all of this. My DD plays in both High School and Club and the officiating is like night and day. The Club games are called much tighter and the High School games are a slugfest. When you get 4 or 5 players from 1 team that have to leave the game because of injuries and no cards are issued, I think that should send a red flag to someone. If a referee chooses not to blow his whistle and just let the kids beat each other up, that is wrong, it is irresposible. This is not Rocket Science, if the Ref would call the games tight you will not have these injuries.

[EWSoccer64]

Thanks BBDad.   Too many parents think that injuries to their own team require cards, and that when the cards are not shown, it means poor refereeing rather than poor coaching on their own team's part.
I remember a game I did many years ago where a short boy leaped into a really big boy.  The small kid went down and stayed down, and I blew the whistle.  The parents on the sideline of the big boy were irate, thinking that I had called the foul against their Big Boy.  (to be fair, that team had recieved most of the whistles so far, because of the really bad way they were playing, lots of targetting the opponents rather than the ball, etc.).  Given the volume and nature of the comments of the sideline, I ended up cautioning the coach of the team of the Big Boy.   And did so publicly, explaining to the coah as I did so that the public waving of the yellow card would give her "manna" to keep the parents under control. 
As the "injured" small boy was being carted off the field, I gave him a yellow card as well, which really stunned the parents on his sideline.   Hey, if you go runnign at an opponent, jump up, leave your feet, and try to bury your shoulder into an opponent who is standing still, you deserve a card.  Even if you come off second worst.   
I think I left that game with both sidelines thinking that I was favoring the other team that day..............

Two comments. First, I can tell you what we were told as basketball officials. We do not have the authority to question whether a player has been cleared or not. Once they are set off it is the coaches responsibility to follow appropriate protocols to get authorization. I raised the question of what are our options as officials if we believe they are still being impacted physically. The response was that we are authorized to send a player off anytime we suspect an injury. It was suggested that we have a quick conversation with the player and if we suspect we can send them off again. Or if we see any symptoms that migh lead us to believe they are still experiencing symptoms we can send them off. (dizziness, unsteadiness, confusion, etc., etc.) Theoretically the coach has to go through the protocols again. We mark it in the officials scorers book each time. I am not sure what the options are in soccer but I think I could do the same thing. Hopefully the coach gets the hint.

Second note has to do with a comment earlier. See below.
 
last nights game 4 girls from our team were helped off the team by the coach. Only one returned. Now we have 8 varsity players injured. One is a knee injury, one took an elbow to the head and not sure how that will turn out... our keep was taken out by the opposing teams forward and her arm was hurt but she returned to play and the last one was the worst... player not even involved in a play... takes an elbow to her nose... its turned sideways and blood gushing out. No card for the girl who did it...but.... get this.... she is hysterical and lets out an F bomb while the blood is flowing.... Ref gives HER a red card. Wow...just wow. Not sure if there will be a concussion in this group. Possibly with the first head injury.  Its getting rough out there.

I have a much different perspective on this game as I was at it. The keeper injury was her fault and there should have been a no call. A forward broke on a long kick from her side. She was onside and had a lead from the last defender. She was looking back tracking the ball when the keeper came out of the box. She saw the forward and then began tracking the ball herself. The ball landed between the two players and neither gained possession. However, as the forward turned there was no time and there was a full speed collision. I think the call was more of a reaction to the result than the incident as there was a significant time period before any call. The first head injury occurred when a an offensive player was going to head the ball. A defender came up hard and leaped toward the back of the offensive player who has no idea there was anyone behind her. The offensive player headed the ball backward over her head. The defender who was leading with her head from behind got hit and went down. There was no call as there should not have been. Finally, the last injury the players was involved in the play. She did exactly what the previous defender did and came from behind on a header. She led with her head and unfortunately when the offensive player headed it backward she got hit in the face. She did not go down but held her nose. She stood there for a few seconds and then the ball went out by her. She said something to the official which got her a yellow card. Instead of settling down she thew out an F word loud enough for all of us to hear. Red card came out. I would say that the girls need to learn not lead with their head from behind and there would have been no injuries.

[sounderfan]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/revolution/story/2011-10-28/Taylor-Twellman-concussion/50979430/1

[sounderfan]

COACHES: Take this survey on concussiions, & share the link please:

https://korrio.com/news-and-events/company-news/youth-soccer-concussion-awareness-survey-for-coaches/

[sounderfan]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/29/soccer-heading-may-cause-brain-damage/?hpt=hp_t3

Interesting report that says after about 1,300 headers a year...brain damage can kick in.

[sounderfan]

Concussions mean end of Sounder Terry Bosses career:
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2011/11/30/2600204/terry-boss-retiring-concussions-seattle-sounders

[SaraBellum]

A couple of weeks ago I was in a car accident..... doctor diagnosis- concussion among other things.  I'm sure other cps have had them. It's awful. Couldn't remember names, had a rough time with math, light and sound was painful (MRI was a real treat). The headache was terrible.  After this experience I can tell you my opinion has changed. No matter what the 'letter of the law is' we should think of the spirit of it. This is to protect players (our children). Is allowing them to go back to the game earlier than they should worth the possibility of permanent brain damage? Concussions take time to heal and shouldn't be rushed.

[Left Foot]

A couple of weeks ago I was in a car accident..... doctor diagnosis- concussion among other things.  I'm sure other cps have had them. It's awful. Couldn't remember names, had a rough time with math, light and sound was painful (MRI was a real treat). The headache was terrible.  After this experience I can tell you my opinion has changed. No matter what the 'letter of the law is' we should think of the spirit of it. This is to protect players (our children). Is allowing them to go back to the game earlier than they should worth the possibility of permanent brain damage? Concussions take time to heal and shouldn't be rushed.

Right On! And studies have shown that much greater damage can occur when a second concussion happens before the first concussion is fully healed.

That being said, I am concerned that I am permantly concussed since I can't remember names and have difficulty with math....

[EWSoccer64]

A couple of weeks ago I was in a car accident..... doctor diagnosis- concussion among other things.  I'm sure other cps have had them. It's awful. Couldn't remember names, had a rough time with math, light and sound was painful (MRI was a real treat). The headache was terrible.  After this experience I can tell you my opinion has changed. No matter what the 'letter of the law is' we should think of the spirit of it. This is to protect players (our children). Is allowing them to go back to the game earlier than they should worth the possibility of permanent brain damage? Concussions take time to heal and shouldn't be rushed.

Right On! And studies have shown that much greater damage can occur when a second concussion happens before the first concussion is fully healed.

That being said, I am concerned that I am permantly concussed since I can't remember names and have difficulty with math....

That explains your politics!   

[Old Dog]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/29/soccer-heading-may-cause-brain-damage/?hpt=hp_t3

Interesting report that says after about 1,300 headers a year...brain damage can kick in.

Lets break down that number, lets say we have 30 games a year, we also have 52 weeks so lets say we train 48 of them at 2 times a week. So 30 + (48x2) = X. 1300 / X = 11 headers per event

I remember when my sons team was about U-13 and the coach was complaining (former Pro defender) about getting on the end of the GK punts. Our GK boomed it a mile high and long. The boys said show us how coach. GK booms one, coach sets up up and it drives him to the ground. He walked away rubbing his head and the boys smiling.

[TheWarpedDog]

And having had to hospitalize my son, endure $$$ for MRI's, CT scans and more fun then you can shake a stick at he ended up missing a major portion of his senior HS season with cummulative concussion syndrome.  (many minors turning into something big).  The going forward health of my son is worth way more then some silly game.  If someone says "SIT THAT KID" they are making that call in the interest (IMO) of the players well being.