Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
The kid's team could have had proper paperwork (waivers, physician's comments) to avoid putting the officials in a tough spot, written words that takes the officials outa the middle. Paux on them!
|
Do you think it's reasonable for the coaching staff to realize there's a rule that forces legless kids to wear shoes?
And then to petition the state for a waiver?
|
The kid is a senior and has played all his team's previous games this season on special teams, according to the article. I find it remarkable that no opponent, no previous official, nobody commented about it to the team. How could this be the first time anybody noticed?
|
Out of the area Extra-special officials.
Extra-special New/young crew.
Extra-special Half-time discussion with Rule Book.
"Easy peasy. Japanesey." - Brooks Hatlin
|
So it took one extra-special crew half a game to understand how to deal with this extra-special kid.
But you're saying the coaching staff should have been super-extra-special to prevent the problem caused when the extra-special crew noticed the extra-special kid had no shoes on his legless body.
I aint buyin it Mick, that's just spreading the special sauce too thin IMO.
|
Dan,
I didn't say anything about extra-special, or super-extra-special, I think. [Just checked. Nope didn't say that.]
It seems to me that getting the paperwork in line would be rather mundane once the parameters are in place.
mick
|
Check again, it's what I saw.
My point is this kid played some number of games plus a half plus scrimmages without a problem from any officials. What did the OOO crew think they were proving at this point? Maybe a word with the coach would have been enough? With a follow-up to state through their own organization for clarification?
Wait...I just read M&M's post. Never mind Mick, you're right.
