Being both a high school football official and a certified athletic trainer has often given me a unique perspective that often sets me apart from each group. In the past, it helped me to teach the athletic trainers that I work with what the rules are that govern the sport and how to craft padding so they can remain compliant with the rules. This unique combination has also given me understanding that many ATs didn't have when the rules regarding head injury weren't made clear to them. Before the Zach Lystedt laws, officials had the responsibility to inform a coach that a student athlete needed to be evaluated for a head injury. Many ATs didn't know about this rule and thought the officials were overstepping their authority in the rare event when an official enforced the rule.
However, this dual credential has also had some ill effects. I usually don't complain about the same things that coaches do on the sidelines and I often am able to back my arguments with the rules and proper terminology. This usually doesn't make me many friends from the officials when I have a valid point; creating some tense discussions. However, one of the hottest discussions that I have had with officials has not occurred on the field, but off of it.
With a version of the Zach Lystedt law passing in Ohio, it is now a requirement of all coaches and officials that work with kids under the age of 18 to take an online course covering concussions every three years. This has been a big source of conflict since I have been working with officials who are friends of mine to inform them of their new requirements. the most common reaction I have received is that of resistance. The statement "the officials are not there to make a diagnosis" is very common. While I can't disagree with them on this point, they are missing the bigger picture.
The point that I counter this argument with comes, again, from football. Having the officials take this concussion course will increase the awareness of the issue if nothing else. Its should, therefore, also help the officials realize their importance in the prevention of these injuries.
And as it just so happens, another great example of my argument occurred last night in the AFC Championship game. Last night, Stevan Ridley of the New England Patriots was carrying the ball and was confronted by a defender who was ready to tackle him.
How did he react to this situation? Did he try to juke and run around him? Did he try to stiff arm and push him away? Did he change direction and try to find another open running lane?
No, he chose to lower his head to take the impact to the head first. Immediately after the hit, Ridley fell to the turf and displayed what we call "posturing" or the "fencing response" while the rest of the players fell into a scrum for the fumbled football. As you can see on the video, Stevan Ridley is holding his arms out at unnatural angles in front of him after getting hit. While this response is still somewhat controversial as to the relationship of the severity of the concussion for someone who demonstrates a fencing response, it is widely believed to be "not a good sign" for obvious reasons by many in the medical community. When it was later reported by the announcers that the Patriots were not allowing him to return to the game due to a "head injury," every doctor and athletic trainer watching the game screamed at the television "No kidding!"
Of course, this is one concussion that likely could have been prevented in the first case. There are rules in place that make leading with the head like this an illegal helmet contact at all levels of play. However, this has not been equally enforced, if at all. In the last couple of years, spearing has seen a resurgence and is being called more often. However, it is usually only called against the defense and seldom, if ever, against the ball carrier. This needs to change.
Furthermore, the illegal helmet contact penalty is only being called for spearing. Spearing is defined as the perpetrator lowering his head and hit with the crown of his helmet. This is a nice start and helps prevent the catastrophic neck, or cervical, fractures that plagued the sport in the 1960s-70s, but there is more to the illegal helmet contact rule than spearing.
The problem with this is that leading with the face mask MAY reduce your chances of a fracture, but it does not reduce your chance of sustaining a concussion. Therefore, officials need to recognize and call butt blocking and face tackling as well. These are defined in the rules books as illegal acts that consist of hitting an opponent by leading with the face mask. (The difference between the two techniques is subtle and it depends on who is being tackled.) Unfortunately, these hits are usually celebrated by coaches as the big "ESPN" highlight reel hits that end up on YouTube and are not being called properly. Here is one such example that makes me sick to see no flag and to hear the coaches celebrate this hit. http://youtu.be/-V-TUmknlUY
If the NFL refuses to make this call against the ball carrier, then they are essentially telling the youth that this is how it is supposed to be played. This is what gets celebrated. This illegal hit is what gets you a bigger contract, endorsement deals, and ESPN "Top Ten Plays" appearances. The youth are watching and mimicking the pros. The NFL must understand that. It doesn't matter if the professionals don't want to be seen as role models as Charles Barkley of NBA fame once stated. They are role models to the kids who dream of being a part of that small percent of youth football players that make it onto the same fields, under the same lights, and in front of the same crowds and cameras that their role models are playing for.
Of course, this problem is not exclusive to football either. Hockey has a big problem on their hands too. MMA recently released a statement calling their sport "safe." (Whatever they are smoking, it must be really good.) The point is that officials in all sports have a central responsibility in helping to PREVENT the injuries from occurring. The way they do it is through enforcing the rules and creating the precedent that violations of the rules will be penalized. If it requires the officials to go and take a short course once every three years to help recognize their responsibility, then I am in full support.
Besides, did I mention the classes are free?
No comments :
Post a Comment