Otule red-shirting, but practicing

[StillAWarrior]

No, that's not what it means, the NCAA is very specific about it.  The injury is considered season ending only if you do not play because you are physically unable to do so.  If you get medically cleared at any point before the season ends, then the injury is no longer considered to be season ending regardless of whether or not you actually play after receiving clearance.

How much he played the year before is irrelevant to the current situation and won't factor into the decision at all.   

Thanks, BMA.  How much deference does the NCAA give to the kid's doctor?  If the doctor says that Chris can practice, but is physically unable to play in games, does that mean that the injury is "season ending."  I would seem to me that if MU wants a medical hardship red shirt, Chris's doctor will say that he's physically unable to play in games.  If MU wants Chris to play, the doctor will clear him to play -- assuming he really is OK to play.

[Benny B]

Thanks, BMA.  How much deference does the NCAA give to the kid's doctor?  If the doctor says that Chris can practice, but is physically unable to play in games, does that mean that the injury is "season ending."  I would seem to me that if MU wants a medical hardship red shirt, Chris's doctor will say that he's physically unable to play in games.  If MU wants Chris to play, the doctor will clear him to play -- assuming he really is OK to play.

I assume that in order to get a medical redshirt, you must have a physician go on record saying that the injury was indeed season-ending.  If it is clear that CO is ready to play right now, medically speaking, a physician going on record and saying he's not would putting his license at risk.  Unless MU has recently engaged the services of Dr. Nick Riviera, don't count on the team doctors making up a story just to get CO a medical redshirt.

However, if it's a gray area (i.e. no clear evidence to say that he definitely is or isn't ready to play), then a physician could make a decision either way based on his own discretion and I would hope that the NCAA would defer to that decision.

[bma725]

Thanks, BMA.  How much deference does the NCAA give to the kid's doctor?  If the doctor says that Chris can practice, but is physically unable to play in games, does that mean that the injury is "season ending."  I would seem to me that if MU wants a medical hardship red shirt, Chris's doctor will say that he's physically unable to play in games.  If MU wants Chris to play, the doctor will clear him to play -- assuming he really is OK to play.

It's based mostly on the reports from the team physician and team surgeon(if applicable).  They'll also review any medical records that are supplied.

[StillAWarrior]

I assume that in order to get a medical redshirt, you must have a physician go on record saying that the injury was indeed season-ending.  If it is clear that CO is ready to play right now, medically speaking, a physician going on record and saying he's not would putting his license at risk.  Unless MU has recently engaged the services of Dr. Nick Riviera, don't count on the team doctors making up a story just to get CO a medical redshirt.

However, if it's a gray area (i.e. no clear evidence to say that he definitely is or isn't ready to play), then a physician could make a decision either way based on his own discretion and I would hope that the NCAA would defer to that decision.

For the most part, I'm talking about the gray area.  I do think there is a difference between practicing and playing in games.  I think it would be reasonable for a physician to say, "he can practice, but he's not cleared for games."  My question is whether this would be considered a season ending injury for red shirt purposes.

I'm not a doctor (and don't play one on TV), but I have to wonder if a physician would put his or her license at risk by taking an overly conservative approach.  Saying a kid is not ready to play when other doctor's might disagree doesn't seem like the kind of action that would risk a doctor's license.  Doctors would just cite their own professional judgment and I think it is unlikely that another doctor would step in and criticize the judgment because there would be no harm to anyone.  On the other hand, saying a kid is ready to play when he is not ready would be the type of statement that might cause trouble for the doctor.  And, it would be easier to find a doctor to criticize this decision after the fact -- particularly if the player was harmed.

[4everwarriors]

Dudes, get real. Doctors give opinions all day long. There are no licensure issues at stakes. It's an opinion. Some will agree with and others may not.

[6746jonesr]

This isn't rocket science here.  Otule was hurt, hasn't played since the injury, and did not play in 30% of the games.  No one has to risk their license by mistating the facts to the NCAA.  This is a pretty simple, straight forward process.  MU applies for the redshirt, and nearly 100% oif the time they are granted the request.  That Otule might be willing to practice is irrelevant.

[StillAWarrior]

Dudes, get real. Doctors give opinions all day long. There are no licensure issues at stakes. It's an opinion. Some will agree with and others may not.

Dude, read the posts.  I never said there was a licensure issue.  My post, although in hindsight not particularly well worded, expressed my scepticism that this would create a licensure issue.  In retrospect I would have preferred to have used the word "doubt" instead of "wonder."  But the next sentence pretty clearly expresses my thought that this wouldn't put a doctor's license in trouble.  I then went on to say that if a doctor cleared a player that wasn't ready, that could cause trouble -- and I stand by that.  It would be a typical malpractice analysis.