[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by GarthB



In Dave Hensley's absence, allow me to ask: Can you cite two instances in the last, oh, let's say 40 years,in any state, in which umpires were found, by a court, to be negligent or in any way at fault and held financially responsible for an injury?

Garth, do not have proof, but as in many a lawsuit, they are settled out of court, hence no record of what took place.

I look at this way, you could be a very healthy person all your life, but there's that one time you need health insurance, and it's well worth it.

I'm not talking about being a nit-pick umpire either, but if it's gross negligence, why take the risk. The rule clearly states Double ear-Flaps. If one team has it, why not the other.

Let's take an extreme case. You allow a batter to hit with NO helmet and something happens. IMO you WILL be LIABLE. So why risk it.

We can even look at from their point of view. Once they've scared you into taking out a policy, how do they set the rates? Normally by either historical evidence or predicted future occurances. Since their rates are incredibly low for the dollar amount of "coverage", what does that tell us about their assumption that they'll ever have to pay out?

Garth I think you are missing the point on this one. Yes, the rates are determined through historical trends, but they are also based on the numbers. Let's take NASO for example. The rates are relatively low because there are thousands of umpires enrolled in the program. The more individuals you have enrolled in a program the lower the rates. It's like ordering Shirts in an umpire organization. If you order by yourself, you will pay more, however, if you order through the organization it's cheaper because they order in bulk.

In Summary, just because it hasn't happened in 40 or so years doesn't mean it can't.

Pete Booth