Quote:
Originally posted by DJWickham
when you were jailed.
The umpire is designated by the League president and represents the league. Rule 9.01. While the Court might not be able to jail opposing managers or players who refused to play (if the order is directed to the league), the language of the rules of baseball makes it easy to get the umpires. Those who choose civil disobediance accept jail as a necessary consequence of following their conscience, as did Ghandi or Martin Luther King. But I would visit you, Warren, and bring you a cake!
|
For this effect to operate though, Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the league have to give me or my umpire association a specific direction giving effect to the court ruling? I repeat, the court's determination was to the PIAA, not the umpire association. Independent contractors have independent rights, don't they? If the league directs me to do something, and gives me no other choice in the matter, I believe I can do one of two things:
(a) Accept the written league directive, secure in the knowledge that the directive absolves me of any liability, or
(b) Withdraw my labour, knowing that no league can REQUIRE me to work anywhere or at any time.
This is hardly "civil disobedience", Dennis, surely? I can assure you I wouldn't put myself in the same class as either Ghandi or Dr King, either!
BTW, I would certainly thank you for bringing the cake, but given my oft-proclaimed weight problems I doubt I would eat it myself. (grin)
Quote:
I suspect that there is no law "down under" similar to our Americans With Disabilities Act (although there are those who believe such rights are envisioned in the Charter of the United Nations). But your country, like mine, has battled with vestiges of discrimination.
|
Surprisingly enough, there is a law Down Under called the Anti-Discrimination Act [ADA for short (grin) - go figure!] And yes we still "battle with the vestiges of discrimination" (sic), even today. It doesn't confront us on the issue of color the same way it does you, because our aboriginal population is less than 1.5% of the total population nationally, but there are still pockets where the concentration of aboriginals is high enough for such issues to arise with some regrettable frequency.
Quote:
The actual facts concerning Mr. Oddi (from the wire service) are that he has been a high school coach for 11 years, and has been head coach (in PA, head coaches act as a base coach) for 5 years without any problem. He served as a base coach for 3 years without anyone even making a comment until 1999 when 2 umpires said he couldn't be on the field. The association then addressed the issue and permitted him to continue as a base coach. He then continued to do his job, again without incident, for the 1999 and 2000 season. His team was co-champion in 1999. Thus, he proved he was able to do the job safely for 5 years. If any balls or players came near the third base coaches box, he was able to get out of the way.
On March 1, 2001, the local high school association said he couldn't be a base coach without any hearing and without considering whether Mr. Oddi posed any real risk. The issue hadn't been discussed during the annual rules interpretation meeting in Februrary. Rather, the association uniquely interpretting two rules: 1) a basecoach can only have a scorebook or a lineup; and 2) an umpire cannot use crutches to determine that high school rules ban coaches on crutches. A federal distict judge mediated the settlement, although some reports say that he issued an injunction under the ADA.
|
Aha! A veritable avalanche of information about this particular case to which I was not privy! So Mr Oddi has a history of NOT creating a risk. That's a horse of a whole other color, isn't it? It doesn't change the way I'd approach the question if Mr Oddi presented on my diamond FOR THE FIRST TIME ANYWHERE, however. Bottom line, it's a lot harder to remove a privilege already granted than it is to refuse to grant it in the first place. The underlying principle I offered is still sound, however;
prove there is no injury risk before subjecting the participants to that risk.
With a history of no problems, I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable about accepting a league directive to allow Mr Oddi to participate while using his crutches and I probably wouldn't withdraw my labour in that case. I enjoy the game too much! What interests me about this is the statement where you say, "2) an umpire cannot use crutches to determine that high school rules ban coaches on crutches." I'm not sure I understand this determination. Are they saying the crutches don't exist as a hazard-producing element? What? As far as I'm concerned, the fact he NEEDS crutches to be mobile, and those crutches represent a hazard on their own, is the ONLY reason I would consider excluding Mr Oddi. As I said if he could move around on his prosthetics without the crutches, and depending on the type of prosthetics involved, I would be less likely to want to exclude him.
BTW, not that it's especially significant here but I have worked with an umpire who has a prosthetic leg. He was a little slower than average getting to the plays when doing the bases, but no more so than able-bodied umpires with a weight, age or other minor mobility problem for example. It was at the 1998 Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships), and he was good enough to get to that level without his disability being an issue. We aren't entirely backward in the Antipodes, you know!
Cheers,