USSF bans heading

[Unregistered]

The sad thing about comments like yours is that they ignore the fact that lawsuits will come only if and when a child suffers a concussion. Without a concussion there isn't a case. I suppose a concussion case without a concussion could be filed, but there really aren't a lot of frivolous cases filed in the grand scheme of things. If you see plenty of them, you must be an insurance adjuster or insurance defense lawyer. Everything is frivolous from that perspective but it's pretty warped. Finally, I read your comment about lawyers "chomping [sic] at the bit" and seeking damages as a negative. Did you intend it some other way? Should kids who needlessly suffer concussions be denied a remedy?

Here's an excerpt from an earlier post:

"I would imagine the law firm that led the action is cashing it's fee check today and will be sitting poolside tomorrow in a warm and sunny spot drawing up a list of the next in line organizations. That is the way it works in US."

I'm pretty sure this was not meant as a compliment or even a neutral statement.

I have tried cases, that's true; but not very many injury cases and those were usually on the defense side.

And the sad thing about your response is that it's consistent with the, "if there's an injury, it must be someone else's fault" approach. Negligence claims existed before this suit - kids who were injured due to negligent conduct of third parties weren't denied a remedy. This settlement now just makes it much easier because a group of parents and their attorneys feel they know what's best for the soccer industry (e.g., a health care professional mandated at every academy game? Please!). Fail to follow the higher standards, and you'll be held liable. Parents bitch about the costs of club soccer now? Just wait.

I didn't write the passage you quote, but it's a reasonable assumption that the attorneys who brought the suit still were paid. It's the same firm that settled the NCAA class action - surprise (!), of the $70M that was allocated for medical monitoring, $15M went for attorneys' fees. That settlement also wasn't for damages, but the settlement reserved the right for individual plaintiff claims. The USSF/FIFA suit didn't seek damages, but the request included a claim for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Of course they were paid handsomely as part of the resolution.

BTW, "chomping at the bit" is modern usage. "Champing at the bit" is original usage that refers to a horse's actions, which is not the meaning behind the attorneys chomping at the bit. You're welcome.

[Unregistered]

It would be a major lawsuit if there was a major injury. If there was a minor injury, then it would be a minor lawsuit. Lawsuits compensate people for injuries actually sustained so the recovery is driven by the extent of the injury. There are exceptions, but that's the rule.

There rarely is such a thing as a minor lawsuit. The costs of litigation alone generally result in significant costs. For those who believe that insurance is the answer, who do you think will be paying those increased premiums?

[Unregistered]

Our friends teenaged daughter suffered a concussion after a blow to the head but the coach didn't think she had a concussion so he put her back in the game. She's been out for several months now and they don't know if she'll ever play soccer again.

[Unregistered]

But did she get the concussion from a header?

I think what they REALLY need is better education for refs. Concussions and many other injuries often occur from dangerous play when refs aren't holding teams accountable to the rules of the game. When kids are allowed to play thug all, players get injured. When refs call fouls and issue cards, kids can play soccer.

[Unregistered]

And the sad thing about your response is that it's consistent with the, "if there's an injury, it must be someone else's fault" approach. Negligence claims existed before this suit - kids who were injured due to negligent conduct of third parties weren't denied a remedy. This settlement now just makes it much easier because a group of parents and their attorneys feel they know what's best for the soccer industry (e.g., a health care professional mandated at every academy game? Please!). Fail to follow the higher standards, and you'll be held liable. Parents bitch about the costs of club soccer now? Just wait.

I didn't write the passage you quote, but it's a reasonable assumption that the attorneys who brought the suit still were paid. It's the same firm that settled the NCAA class action - surprise (!), of the $70M that was allocated for medical monitoring, $15M went for attorneys' fees. That settlement also wasn't for damages, but the settlement reserved the right for individual plaintiff claims. The USSF/FIFA suit didn't seek damages, but the request included a claim for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Of course they were paid handsomely as part of the resolution.

BTW, "chomping at the bit" is modern usage. "Champing at the bit" is original usage that refers to a horse's actions, which is not the meaning behind the attorneys chomping at the bit. You're welcome.

Champing and chomping are different things. You equate modern with lazy and incorrect. The expression comes from horse racing. It means getting excited which is exactly what you meant.

If a governing body sets a standard and it's not followed then that's negligence. What's your problem with following standards?

[Unregistered]

And the sad thing about your response is that it's consistent with the, "if there's an injury, it must be someone else's fault" approach. Negligence claims existed before this suit - kids who were injured due to negligent conduct of third parties weren't denied a remedy. This settlement now just makes it much easier because a group of parents and their attorneys feel they know what's best for the soccer industry (e.g., a health care professional mandated at every academy game? Please!). Fail to follow the higher standards, and you'll be held liable. Parents bitch about the costs of club soccer now? Just wait.

I didn't write the passage you quote, but it's a reasonable assumption that the attorneys who brought the suit still were paid. It's the same firm that settled the NCAA class action - surprise (!), of the $70M that was allocated for medical monitoring, $15M went for attorneys' fees. That settlement also wasn't for damages, but the settlement reserved the right for individual plaintiff claims. The USSF/FIFA suit didn't seek damages, but the request included a claim for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Of course they were paid handsomely as part of the resolution.

BTW, "chomping at the bit" is modern usage. "Champing at the bit" is original usage that refers to a horse's actions, which is not the meaning behind the attorneys chomping at the bit. You're welcome.

With a lot of experience I can proclaim, there does NOT have to be negligence or even a strong case to put forth an action. Once you assert a claim, the costs of defense push most risk adverse entities to engage in settlement.

I have seen the weakest of claims settle for large amounts because of the cost of litigation and the risks of losing. It is wrong in every context, but a fact of life.

Right or wrong doesn't matter.

[Unregistered]

But did she get the concussion from a header?

I think what they REALLY need is better education for refs. Concussions and many other injuries often occur from dangerous play when refs aren't holding teams accountable to the rules of the game. When kids are allowed to play thug all, players get injured. When refs call fouls and issue cards, kids can play soccer.

Not sure if it was a deliberate header but it was a ball hitting her head.
Agree with the ref's needing to call games tighter. Particularly girls games. Look at the OYSA site and compare the low number of cards given to girls compared to boys over the season. It should be about even but the number of cards given in girls games (to players) is ridiculously low.

[Unregistered]

Not sure exactly what the law is in Oregon but in Washington it's pretty clear.

Under the Lystedt law, the player should not have returned to play. The Lystedt law does not require that a professional determine IF a concussion has occurred. It mandates that if there is SUSPICION of a concussion then the player cannot return to play that day. That suspicion can be from a coach, parent, player or referee. Importantly, one person's suspicion cannot be over ruled by a non-professional. For example, if a ref sees an injury that could be concussion-causing then they cannot be overruled by the coach or the players that they are ok and can keep playing. The player needs to be evaluated and cleared by a professional (can be doctor, ARNP, PA or even a licensed athletic trainer) prior to returning to any play.

[Unregistered]

Champing and chomping are different things. You equate modern with lazy and incorrect. The expression comes from horse racing. It means getting excited which is exactly what you meant.

If a governing body sets a standard and it's not followed then that's negligence. What's your problem with following standards?

Old world english. No different than referencing Olde world english.

Because the governing bodies are setting standards under the threat of a lawsuit, creating standards that are meant to appease litigous individuals and their attorneys, while modifying the training and playing standards in a way that is significantly different than the rest of the world because "we know better." These standards also are so ambigous that any decent litigator will be able to make a case which, as another poster noted, is more than half the battle since the suit doesn't have to have merit to cost the defendant(s) significant sums.

[Unregistered]

Where we will end up is that heading the ball will be illegal in the USA, and any time any player hits their head or is hit on the head, by anything, they will have to leave the game and get cleared by a doctor before returning. There will be an increase in the number of "goons" on soccer teams whose sole purpose is to go around knocking the other teams star players out of the match with simple slaps upside the head.

[Unregistered]

Where we will end up is that heading the ball will be illegal in the USA, and any time any player hits their head or is hit on the head, by anything, they will have to leave the game and get cleared by a doctor before returning. There will be an increase in the number of "goons" on soccer teams whose sole purpose is to go around knocking the other teams star players out of the match with simple slaps upside the head.

I hadn't thought of that. Or just boot the ball directly at the star player...hard header...she's pulled and out till cleared if an opposing parent says "there is a suspicion of a concussion". If I'm the coach, I pull any player who gets a hit to the head or even heads a punted ball just to be on the safe side!

[Unregistered]

Old world english. No different than referencing Olde world english.

Because the governing bodies are setting standards under the threat of a lawsuit, creating standards that are meant to appease litigous individuals and their attorneys, while modifying the training and playing standards in a way that is significantly different than the rest of the world because "we know better." These standards also are so ambigous that any decent litigator will be able to make a case which, as another poster noted, is more than half the battle since the suit doesn't have to have merit to cost the defendant(s) significant sums.

and it will all be covered by insurance. Maybe the governing bodies are setting a standard that makes sense from a public health and safety perspective and it took the threat of a lawsuit to get them to do it. Sort of like what has happened with all those brain damaged NFL players.

Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there who want to bring lawsuits? There are some, and there certainly are lawyers who will take skinny cases. However, most injury cases that cost real money either to bring or to defend have real injured people. In this case, they'd be kids with a traumatic brain injury. That's a bad thing.

Chomping is catching up, but it's still behind in English language usage. It's not like Olde word English at all. It's more like saying "irregardless." Sooner or later that will be accepted usage too.

[Unregistered]

and it will all be covered by insurance. Maybe the governing bodies are setting a standard that makes sense from a public health and safety perspective and it took the threat of a lawsuit to get them to do it. Sort of like what has happened with all those brain damaged NFL players.

Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there who want to bring lawsuits? There are some, and there certainly are lawyers who will take skinny cases. However, most injury cases that cost real money either to bring or to defend have real injured people. In this case, they'd be kids with a traumatic brain injury. That's a bad thing.

Chomping is catching up, but it's still behind in English language usage. It's not like Olde word English at all. It's more like saying "irregardless." Sooner or later that will be accepted usage too.

And I ask, albeit rhetorically, who will be paying for that insurance? No question that children get hurt playing soccer, just like any other sport. I simply do not believe that every injury, even a traumatic brain injury, is the result of negligent conduct of someone else. The new standards are making it easier to place the blame elsewhere.

[Unregistered]

And I ask, albeit rhetorically, who will be paying for that insurance? No question that children get hurt playing soccer, just like any other sport. I simply do not believe that every injury, even a traumatic brain injury, is the result of negligent conduct of someone else. The new standards are making it easier to place the blame elsewhere.

Players cards will go from $18 to $100+ to cover the additional liability insurance.

[Unregistered]

And I ask, albeit rhetorically, who will be paying for that insurance? No question that children get hurt playing soccer, just like any other sport. I simply do not believe that every injury, even a traumatic brain injury, is the result of negligent conduct of someone else. The new standards are making it easier to place the blame elsewhere.

They already pay for insurance. There's already risk of concussive injury. Hopefully the new protocol will reduce the incidence of such injuries. If there are concussion injuries, there is the added risk that someone in a supervisory role may have not followed the governing standards, or is at least charged with not doing so. I'm not an underwriter, but I doubt the loss experience resulting from concussion suffering soccer players who are under U11 where a claim is made because standards weren't followed will be very significant.

Just who were you going to blame for the concussion suffering 10 year old before this rule change? The 10 year old? Mom and Dad?