[greymule]

When I did Fed, half the questions on the tests involved safety rules and half the time in meetings was spent on the same subject. Inspect the bats, check the field. When you go over the ground rules, be sure to read the legal disclaimer. What if the runner slides past the base on a force play and contacts the fielder? What official seal has to be on the helmet, the bat, the ball? What if the runner is standing on a base and removes his helmet to adjust it on his head? What if the runner appears to be using a tobacco-like substance? What if there's lightning? What if the 3B coach is holding a clip board or sitting in a wheel chair?

The rationale for all this was that if we don't review these items every year, the trial lawyers will have a field day with us when somebody gets hurt or offended. OK. Fair enough. That's the U.S. today.

However, stories such as the one that started this thread are not uncommon, and it is clear that organizations that I would think should be concerned about liability are putting demonstrable idiots on the field as officials. (Umpiring for drug money doesn't really seem so implausible.) After all, there's no stronger proof that an umpire doesn't know what he's doing than several purely officious ejections early in a game over trivialities.

Trial lawyer: And what is your experience umpiring?
Umpire: I umpire a summer league.
Trial lawyer: How did you learn the rules? Did you take a test?
Umpire: No, I'm an assistant coach for a high school team. I also played Little League. Plus I watch games on TV.
Trial lawyer: Do you have a copy of the rule book used by the tournament in which you threw six people out of the game before the kid broke his neck?
Umpire: Uh, no.
Did you ever read the rule book for that organization?:
Umpire: Uh . . .

How can these organizations risk using these people as officials?