Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantherdreams
I think the governing association and the officials decided like you that giving the player some access to interpreter met the athletes need and their obligations.
Beyond that there are 2 groups of people upset.
1) Fans/followers who are in a twist because they got something one way all season long and then when someone tries to enforce a rule they get up in arms. Welcome to being a fan/follower.
2) The head of the legal branch of National Association for the deaf said in the article:
"Regardless of what the rules are for who may be on the sidelines, even if they limit access to coaches only, denying an interpreter is a violation of federal laws mandating equal access for deaf people."
Rosenblum said what happened "denies equal communication" for Joey.
So from the legal side they are likely going to argue the idea of equal communication. That if A1 can have a private convo with the coach standing in the box, Joey through hi interpreter all. need to be able to have a similar conversation with the coach. The argument will be that the interpreter is is not getting to communicate the coaches message are clearly, effectivey and in an equal way as the communication is happening.
|
The cynical side of me says...if Joey is looking over at his interpreter for signs while on defense, he's at even more of a disadvantage....but I would also agree that the interpreter should be allowed access to communicate coach messages both in the huddle and during game.
Only once can I recall in my officiating years (20) where this type of thing came up and it was in a youth league. Of course, we allowed the interpreter to be where needed (which coach requested endline)...as long as they stayed back off the endline and out of the way of the officials..
This is the second event in the last month where the IHSAA is under fire. Now this one is a little more cut and dry to me...
https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...aa/2949529002/