Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
After a few minutes, both players got up and play resumed with neither player leaving the game. R1 walked into her dugout under her own power;
|
I would submit that any "injury" where both players got up and neither left the game wouldn't meet the definition of:
ASA 10.4-G "when a player becomes injured and in the umpire's judgment requires
immediate attention".
NFHS 5-2-1-d "injury occurs during a live ball, then time
shall not be called until no further advance or putout is possible. Note: If necessary, the umpire may suspend play immediately if .... further play may
cause injury or jeopardize a participant's safety.
NCAA 15.10.2.3 "An umpire
shall not temporarily suspend play .... in case of injury until all plays in progress have been completed or each runner has been held at her base.
Exception: When necessary to
protect an injured player ...".
ISF 10.8-f "In case of injury, except in the umpires' judgment with a
serious injury which may put the player in danger, "TIME" shall not be called until all plays in progress have been completed, or runners have been held at their bases."
So, the hard and party line, this almost assuredly didn't meet the criteria to kill the play. And, in NCAA, at least, and most upper level ASA Nationals, you would be challenged if you suspended play on this play. But, our society has led us to believe we should call "Time" when Suzy is hurt at all. But the rules don't tell us to stop if we don't know, only to stop if, in our (sole!!) judgment, further play would 1) cause more injury, 2) jeopardize safety, 3) player requires protection, 4) player is in danger, or 5) player needs
immediate attention. No one set of rules says stop any time Suzy is hurt.
You can be sued if Suzy is hurt badly, whether you stopped play or not; and the likelihood is the same, based on the intent of the lawyers involved, not on if you stopped the game, or even the extent of the injury. Since you are following the rules as spelled out, there is no added liability for not stopping the game, and your "judgment" is considered fairly immune in a court of law; to get added damages, a plaintiff would have to prove you KNEW it was a serious injury, you KNEW if you delayed a few seconds the injury would be worse, and you STILL chose to disregard that knowledge. That is gross negligence (the time your umpire insurance stops covering you) as opposed to negligence (for which you ARE covered); you not being a medical professional capable of KNOWING makes you immune from the "but how did you know, you should have stopped it just because you didn't know" arguments.
So, based on societal expectations, the stoppage is defensible, and probably expected; by the rules, play on until all play has ended.