View Single Post
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 09, 2002, 02:46am
daves daves is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 201
I agree with you on what it says in the officials manual, but the conditions that occured in the original posting is outside the officials jurisdiction. I have declared two players unconcious: once in a girls' varsity basketball game and once in a boys' varsity soccer game. Neither coach was happy, especially the soccer player's coach and parents. But we sometimes we just do not have the authority do be king for a day. We have to pick our battles and this is not one of the battles that we as officals should be fighting (I mean taking actions per the original posting).

I still totally disagree with what you are saying here. I don't consider protecting a player is being "king for a day". I think it is much more likely for an official to get into trouble for not protecting a player than for making a call that in one person's opinion is beyond an official's jurisdiction.

In prior posts you have stated that you don't think that falls under the elastic clause. I don't have my rule book handy so I can't quote chapter and verse. Are you talking about the rule that says that the referee may make a decision not covered in the rules? If so, why would this not be covered under that clause? If it's because you think that player unconsciousness is already covered in the rules, then let me submit this. Using your own rationale, a person on the bench is not a player, so non player unconsciousness is not covered in the rules. Therefore it would fall under the elastic clause.
Reply With Quote