Quote:
Originally Posted by ref1986
wanja,
Thanks. ADs are required to go to the site you provided and check to be sure that that the clearance the official provided was indeed a "no record" report. A report could be forged. Again, it's important to note that nothing in the report will be provided. It will certify that the official received either a "no record" report or a "record" report.
In the past 10 years two middle-aged officials from my area have been busted -- one for statutory rape and the other for child porn. Both served time. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating. Do some of you guys really want men like this moving to your state and officiating your daughters' games???? That's what background checks will prevent. I'm incredulous that anyone opposes them.
|
Please read the entire context of what's been written before passing judgment. These crimes are the prime example of what I'm talking about and will be more readily and cheaply available on a sex-offender registry.
These guys should be banned, I don't question that and never have.
Here's what I am saying:
1. These guys don't have necessary access, in their capacity as officials, that makes it more dangerous.
2. Background checks can give a false sense of security, making people feel comfortable rather than preventing knuckleheads from even having the sort of off-court access we have. There's no reason to stick us in an active lockerroom with students (wrestlers for example) who are showering or dressing.
3. Sex-registries are sufficient to ban the ones who have been caught before.
4. The question of who exactly views the reports and makes decisions needs to be resolved in each jurisdiction.