View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 29, 2005, 06:42pm
Dan_ref Dan_ref is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
As much as it pains me to side with a Yankee fan, I have to agree with Dan. Knowing the rule is important, but knowing why the rule exists is just as important. Obviously the rule is intended for the safety of the player and their toes. But if they don't have toes to protect, what is the purpose of the shoes? Here's a question for those rule-savvy officials: if the player ties the shoes around his belt, then would the shoes be considered jewlery?

Common sense should prevail. I would bet the previous games' officials did notice, and had used common sense. Yes, I think the coaching staff and parents should've also followed through, but it still falls on the officials on this one.
um... but if this kid had artificial legs, then those legs would have to be approved by the state association and an authorization statement would have to be available to the referee.

Why couldn't the same procedure have been followed in this case?

The game officials obviously had some liability concerns. They also really didn't have anything available to alleviate those concerns. So.....are you talking about an OOO here or are you talking about an official with some legitimate liability concerns? Big difference imo.
Oh, I have no problem with liability issues, when they exist. If there were artificial limbs involved - the officials should absolutely be concerned. If a kid from Nigeria comes in and has kicked all life barefoot, and somehow wearing shoes might be against his religion - sorry. The rules say you must wear shoes, unless you have that waiver.

But, did you read the story? Did you see his picture? The point is there is no place to put the shoes. Therefore, what is the liability involved? Actually, I can see the reverse happening - the officials are sued under the Disabilities Act for discrimination. They didn't let him play solely on the basis he couldn't wear shoes and kneepads. Not that there were any feet or knees to protect. You don't have any feet to put the shoes on? Sorry, you just can't play. That's discrimination, and that is also an issue.

I know in this litigious society you can be sued at any time for just about anything. And we as officials need to err on the side of caution every chance we get. And of course the parents and coaches should've had their ducks in a row before this. But this seems to just scream for common sense. And apparently the officials prior to this game had that common sense.
This is pretty much in line with my thnking when I read JR's question to you (to borrow a phrase from MTD thanks for doing yeomans work and may the spirit of J Dallas Shirley smile kindly on you and yours blah blah blah...).

But of course he didn't ask me because he knows I would have just told him to shut up.

Reply With Quote