Quote:
Originally posted by DJWickham
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 for 5 years, he was able to get out of the way.
|
Dennis:
You've obviously never watched games where a physically handicapped coach was in the box. As I said in my first post about this subject, I watched OUR coach on crutches in many games. The games were never played according to the rules. Routine foul popups went unchased because kids had been warned not to hit the coach: "He can't get out of the way."
I know we have fat and lazy coaches who may have problems clearing the area. But they don't have 10 pounds of metal strapped to their arms either.
It is the height of selfishness for someone who poses a distinct risk to put himself and his emotions ahead of the well-being of the players.
In law a potent principle is "the appearance of impropriety." In sports a crippled coach on crutches or in a wheelchair certainly presents "the appearance of a hazard."
Crutches are dangerous enough. What about a wheelchair? Here's what happens when the law becomes PC and is used to police areas far from the intent of the original legislation:
[In 1988] the Nebraska Supreme Court overturned an Amateur Softball Association of America rule barring a coach in a wheelchair from the field, the court holding that banishing wheelchair-bound coaches from the coaching box constitutes unlawful discrimination based solely on a person's physical disability. (BRD Section 111, 1993)
The national office of Little League Baseball, Inc., in July, 1992, stopped an Arizona coach from participating in a sanctioned tournament because he was restricted to a wheelchair. A district judge overturned the ruling: Apparently, equal opportunity is more important than the safety of young ballplayers. In spite of the Nebraska and Arizona decisions, in your NCAA and PRO games [FED at that time prohibited such coahces] I recommend that you do not permit on the field any players or coaches who, because they require non-traditional equipment, may pose a hazard to other game participants or umpires. One day, someone is going to be seriously injured, and the resulting court case will inevitably make its way to the United States Supreme Court, where I hope sanity will finally prevail. (BRD, Section 115, 1995.
Now, Dennis, tell me what happens: My association tells me not to allow Coach Smith on the field in his wheelchair. The Federal district court orders me not to discriminate against the coach. I let him on. A third base becomes tangled in the chair, falls, and permanently wrecks his knee. He's already been drafted by the New York Yankees. So his father, a personal injury lawyer, sues the coach, the league, me, my association, and the Federal judge who probably never walked onto a baseball diamond in his life.
That judge is certainly partly responsible for the injury because his order creates the potential for danger.
Say I build a swimming pool in my back yard, which is surrounded by a ten-foot wooden fence. If I leave the gate unlocked, I am liable when an uninvited neighborhood kid hops in and drowns. I used to know the legal term, but it's something like an "attractive danger." The kids know they're not supposed to trespass, but the water is so inviting.
The judge who commands us to put a coach in the box has created the same potential for danger. It's not a matter of individual discrimination; it's "class" discrimination: Nobody comes onto my field in non-traditional "garb" if it presents a clear and present danger to all.
Who hears the suit where a Federal judge is one of the defendants?
BTW: While I'm yelling and screaming, let me talk about the PRO golfer who can't walk while he's playing a tournament round. If the court mandates a cart for him, every player should be permitted to use a cart. Walking 8000 yards, with its attendant fatigue, is part of the game, isn't it? Wouldn't he be fresher on the 18th green than anybody else in that round?
Everyone knows I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat -- and proud of it. But enough is enough!