Coaching boxes

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by PAblue87
As I stated I do work Oddi's H.S. games. Our group had instructed us not to let him on the field to coach a base. He may make pitching changes, etc as long as the ball is dead. But, the ruling just came out that the PIAA has overturned their dicision and he may coach third. Are we supposed to go against the state association and use individual judgment.

Sounds like your HS association should write a letter to the PIAA expressing their concerns and get a ruling from them as to what happens when a kid gets hurt as a direct result of this coach being allowed on the field during live ball situations.

Put the onus on the PIAA to make a ruling. My gut tells me once your association mentions that the kids could be at risk, they might have a different tune. The Board members of your association need to take a more active role on these decisions.

We all know better. If a kid gets hurt on the field because of this coach wearing crutches - let the lawsuits begin. IMO a good lawyer would have a field day with this.

Pete Booth

[DJWickham]

The Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") is the law, and umpires who refuse to abide by the federal law (where applicable) will find themselves rightfully sued, without any insurance coverage, and paying a large amount for attorneys fees (both for themselves and for the plaintiff). Umpires who ignore a court order will find themselves in jail. Federal judges don't abide by Rule 9.02(a).

The ADA is about prejudice. Each of the reported cases concerning the ADA and sport has similar facts. Someone with a disability asked to play or coach. The league refused on the grounds that someone on crutches (or otherwise disabled) imposed an unacceptable risk of injury to others. The league made no individualized assessment of the risk actually imposed by that person, but assumed (without any study at all) that the risks were too great. Yet, we've all seen fields in which there is a steel post (holding the dugout fence) 10 feet or less from a base. We've all seen base coaches (some old, some fat, and some inattentive) holding metal clipboards. Which is the greater risk to a runner or fielder? It may depend on the coach? An athlete on crutches may be able to react much quicker than the average coach (who looks alot like me)?

We've done the same thing in this post. We've assumed that the coach on crutches couldn't get out of the way of a thrown or batted ball. We've allowed fear to replace reason.

The ADA doesn't require that everyone with a disability gets to do everything that someone without a disability can do. It says that before we deny anyone an opportunity, we need to assess the specific risks imposed by that person. It requires that we give the coach a "tryout" and then make an individualized assessment of the risk. Is that so hard? Is that so unreasonable?

It's pretty arrogant to say that you won't follow the law as long as you are an umpire. Only a few years ago, umpires were refusing to call games where minorities sought to play with white men. I suspect that eventually we'll learn to deal with our fears about the disabled. But, unless we are willing to assess risk based on the individual involved, we're simply dealing with prejudice.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
It's pretty arrogant to say that you won't follow the law as long as you are an umpire. Only a few years ago, umpires were refusing to call games where minorities sought to play with white men. I suspect that eventually we'll learn to deal with our fears about the disabled. But, unless we are willing to assess risk based on the individual involved, we're simply dealing with prejudice.

I'm sorry, Dennis, but I can't agree with your assessment here.

First of all, the law has NOT been tested against an umpire's responsibilities to administer the rules of baseball on the field. It has only been tested against a governing Association's right to decline Mr Oddi the initial opportunity to participate.

Secondly, I would suggest that while there may be no specific safety issue involved with able-bodied minorities playing baseball THESE DAYS, I can certainly understand that there might have been such an issue when the umpires originally made the decision you mentioned. Was it a legitimate concern for them then, or only an excuse? Probably not, but I'm not in any real position to judge. In any event, the issues here are entirely different. In this case the individual or group seeking inclusion is NOT the only one at risk from the consequences.

Thirdly, this isn't about fear of the disabled. It is about consideration for the well-being of ALL participants, including the disabled.

It has been my experience of umpires in general that, by and large, they have an advanced sense of justice and fairness that is almost unsurpassed in any other sport. The reason may well be that they have far more power to decide what is just and fair than those officiating in any other sport, and so must think more carefully about the concept in order to exercise that power responsibly. We don't always see eye-to-eye on how to do that, as this forum and others show, but we certainly agree that it must be done.

Most umpires with whom I am acquainted have a great deal of respect for the law. They are charged with enforcing it in a miniscule corner of life; the baseball diamond. They also have a highly developed sense of balance, and an understanding that having respect for the law doesn't require the abrogation of the dictates of your conscience in its enforcement. Heck, Dennis, even the Marines can disobey orders these days, under the right conditions! And conscientious objection has a much more respectable face today.

I'm sure that almost without exception every person here, who has expressed their concerns about having Mr Oddi on their diamond, would be willing to accept the findings of a truly independent assessment of the risks involved in having him participate in a game. I doubt that the subject court decision constitutes that independent assessment of those risks, however. How could it, unless the court was somehow possessed of the umpire's experience in the game to see how quickly problems can develop even for able-bodied participants. It would certainly have been charged with determining, in theory, whether or not the PIAA decision had infringed Mr Oddi's rights under the ADA, but perhaps not whether that infringement appeared to be in the best interests of the other participants. Were the interests of those "other participants" even independently represented in this case?

Finally, Dennis, unless I am mistaken the direction of the court was to the PIAA and not to the umpires. Umpires making their own assessment of risk is a part and parcel of officiating in these days of indemnity cover. Personally I would rather infringe Mr Oddi's rights, and deny him access to my diamond during live ball action, than have to live with my conscience following a serious injury to some participant that could easily have been avoided had I the courage to stand up against the dictates of a politically correct climate upholding the rights of an individual against the rest of society at ALL costs.

Find a way to assess the risk from Mr Oddi's participation, without first exposing other participants to that risk, and I would be the first to cheer him on. OTOH, don't ask me to accept that no risk exists until some fateful event happens. As umpires, our Duty of Care requires us to foresee such risks, and so prevent them, rather than to observe the consequences first before acting. That, too, is a law that must be obeyed!

Cheers,

[Ump20]

Originally posted by PAblue87
As I stated I do work Oddi's H.S. games. Our group had instructed us not to let him on the field to coach a base. He may make pitching changes, etc as long as the ball is dead. But, the ruling just came out that the PIAA has overturned their dicision and he may coach third. Are we supposed to go against the state association and use individual judgment.

Also, Oddi does wear the metal crutch that has the clasps at the top that go around the forearm.

It is not a discrimination against handicaped to not let him on the field, the PIAA was simply looking at a safety issue. However, what happens if a player, even one of his base runners, does get injured. Who is responsible for the lawsuit? Does this now fall in the lap of the PIAA, the umpires, or Oddi himself? It seems to me taht by walking on the field Oddi is taking responsibility for his own personal injury, he believes that he is capable pf being on the field, and who is to say he is not. But as I said Who takes the blame if someone else is hurt?

[Edited by PAblue87 on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:15 PM]

This is an interesting discussion. How mobile is Coach Oddi? I think this is more of a critical issue than the mere fact that he has crutches. Personally, I would be reluctant to allow a coach with crutches or wheelchair (I don't recall specifics but I did hear a few years ago of the case of a coach using a wheelchair) to be actively involved on the field. If the case has gone to court or school authorities and under ADA the coach is permitted to be in the coaching box I would permit same. I recall the ad several years ago featuring a Vietnam Vet with two artificial legs who played basketball. The modern litigious society dictates flexibiity in applying "rules".

[DJWickham]

when you were jailed.

The umpire is designated by the League president and represents the league. Rule 9.01. While the Court might not be able to jail opposing managers or players who refused to play (if the order is directed to the league), the language of the rules of baseball makes it easy to get the umpires. Those who choose civil disobediance accept jail as a necessary consequence of following their conscience, as did Ghandi or Martin Luther King. But I would visit you, Warren, and bring you a cake!

I suspect that there is no law "down under" similar to our Americans With Disabilities Act (although there are those who believe such rights are envisioned in the Charter of the United Nations). But your country, like mine, has battled with vestiges of discrimination.

The law is a good one, although it is very misunderstood. It says that before you can fire Mr. Oddi as head coach (which is what you are doing if you won't let him do the job of a head coach), you have to know something about Mr. Oddi the person, and not simply look at the crutches. If Mr. Oddi actually poses a risk of injury to himself or others, you cannot provide reasonable accomodation to him in the use of a public accomodation (such as a public school or field).

The actual facts concerning Mr. Oddi (from the wire service) are that he has been a high school coach for 11 years, and has been head coach (in PA, head coaches act as a base coach) for 5 years without any problem. He served as a base coach for 3 years without anyone even making a comment until 1999 when 2 umpires said he couldn't be on the field. The association then addressed the issue and permitted him to continue as a base coach. He then continued to do his job, again without incident, for the 1999 and 2000 season. His team was co-champion in 1999. Thus, he proved he was able to do the job safely for 5 years. If any balls or players came near the third base coaches box for 5 years, he was able to get out of the way.

On March 1, 2001, the local high school association said he couldn't be a base coach without any hearing and without considering whether Mr. Oddi posed any real risk. The issue hadn't been discussed during the annual rules interpretation meeting in Februrary. Rather, the association uniquely interpretting two rules: 1) a basecoach can only have a scorebook or a lineup; and 2) an umpire cannot use crutches. This was the basis of the ban on "coaches on crutches" which was really a ban on the one coach on crutches, Coach Oddi. A federal distict judge mediated the settlement, although some reports say that he issued an injunction ordering the association to let him on the field.

The ADA expressly rejects the notion that it is the disabled person who must prove that he or she is not a risk to others. Rather, it is the obligation of the person who would deny them access, or a job, or participation, to prove that the rule is based upon an individualized assessment of the risk, and not simply on prejudice.

I think the outcome under the ADA is very different for a league or association which looks at the individual and asks whether that person has the requisite skills or abilities necessary to avoid injury. To simply ban crutches is to assume that all persons with crutches pose the identical risk, and that the law forbids.

[Edited by DJWickham on Mar 26th, 2001 at 07:40 PM]

[Ump20]

DJ Wickham provided a lot of the "missing details". I think in life we do well sometimes to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. This disabled coach appears well qualified and I would welcome him on the field. I also value Warren's opinions and positions and would visit with cake in hand.

Actually you could sneak a key into the cake...and...

[Ump20]

I looked back into my archives to find this post by Rich Fronheiser to another Board on May 6, 2000
Paraplegic Can Coach on Field

.c The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A high school baseball coach who uses a wheelchair won the right to instruct his players on the field as part of his settlement Wednesday of a discrimination lawsuit.

Victor Barrios, the paraplegic coach, had been banned from the field during games. He also will be paid $10,000 by the California Interscholastic Federation.

``I'm just happy that I'll finally be allowed to do the job I was hired to do - coach baseball,'' Barrios said.

During the 1999 season at Westminster High School, some umpires restricted Barrios from going onto the field because his wheelchair supposedly slowed the game and posed safety concerns.

Barrios was confined to the dugout for eight of 13 games played by the Westminster Lions. From the dugout, he was forced to holler to his players when he wanted them to advance to another base or stay.

``Yelling it out, the whole other team knows, it defeats the whole purpose,'' said Barrios, who was also barred from the field during pitching changes.

The lawsuit was filed against the CIF and Orange County Baseball Officials Association. Barrios said the ban violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Barrios, 27, coached baseball for four years at Magnolia High School, another CIF school, without objection. When he moved to Westminster High School in 1999, umpires told him he would have to remain in the dugout. He's now back at Magnolia High School in Anaheim.

``No one disputes that CIF should be concerned with safety. But the law,recognizing that society has biases about individuals with disabilities, requires us to challenge our assumption and examine the facts of each case,'' his lawyer, Laura Diamond said.

Barrios will use a portion of the settlement money to buy new uniforms for Magnolia High School's three baseball teams.

CIF lawyer Andrew Patterson could not be reached for comment. He said earlier the CIF was in favor of the disabled participating as coaches.

Sometimes baseball is just a game and sometimes it is a challenge.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
when you were jailed.

The umpire is designated by the League president and represents the league. Rule 9.01. While the Court might not be able to jail opposing managers or players who refused to play (if the order is directed to the league), the language of the rules of baseball makes it easy to get the umpires. Those who choose civil disobediance accept jail as a necessary consequence of following their conscience, as did Ghandi or Martin Luther King. But I would visit you, Warren, and bring you a cake!

For this effect to operate though, Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the league have to give me or my umpire association a specific direction giving effect to the court ruling? I repeat, the court's determination was to the PIAA, not the umpire association. Independent contractors have independent rights, don't they? If the league directs me to do something, and gives me no other choice in the matter, I believe I can do one of two things:

(a) Accept the written league directive, secure in the knowledge that the directive absolves me of any liability, or

(b) Withdraw my labour, knowing that no league can REQUIRE me to work anywhere or at any time.

This is hardly "civil disobedience", Dennis, surely? I can assure you I wouldn't put myself in the same class as either Ghandi or Dr King, either!

BTW, I would certainly thank you for bringing the cake, but given my oft-proclaimed weight problems I doubt I would eat it myself. (grin)

I suspect that there is no law "down under" similar to our Americans With Disabilities Act (although there are those who believe such rights are envisioned in the Charter of the United Nations). But your country, like mine, has battled with vestiges of discrimination.

Surprisingly enough, there is a law Down Under called the Anti-Discrimination Act [ADA for short (grin) - go figure!] And yes we still "battle with the vestiges of discrimination" (sic), even today. It doesn't confront us on the issue of color the same way it does you, because our aboriginal population is less than 1.5% of the total population nationally, but there are still pockets where the concentration of aboriginals is high enough for such issues to arise with some regrettable frequency.

The actual facts concerning Mr. Oddi (from the wire service) are that he has been a high school coach for 11 years, and has been head coach (in PA, head coaches act as a base coach) for 5 years without any problem. He served as a base coach for 3 years without anyone even making a comment until 1999 when 2 umpires said he couldn't be on the field. The association then addressed the issue and permitted him to continue as a base coach. He then continued to do his job, again without incident, for the 1999 and 2000 season. His team was co-champion in 1999. Thus, he proved he was able to do the job safely for 5 years. If any balls or players came near the third base coaches box, he was able to get out of the way.

On March 1, 2001, the local high school association said he couldn't be a base coach without any hearing and without considering whether Mr. Oddi posed any real risk. The issue hadn't been discussed during the annual rules interpretation meeting in Februrary. Rather, the association uniquely interpretting two rules: 1) a basecoach can only have a scorebook or a lineup; and 2) an umpire cannot use crutches to determine that high school rules ban coaches on crutches. A federal distict judge mediated the settlement, although some reports say that he issued an injunction under the ADA.

Aha! A veritable avalanche of information about this particular case to which I was not privy! So Mr Oddi has a history of NOT creating a risk. That's a horse of a whole other color, isn't it? It doesn't change the way I'd approach the question if Mr Oddi presented on my diamond FOR THE FIRST TIME ANYWHERE, however. Bottom line, it's a lot harder to remove a privilege already granted than it is to refuse to grant it in the first place. The underlying principle I offered is still sound, however; prove there is no injury risk before subjecting the participants to that risk.

With a history of no problems, I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable about accepting a league directive to allow Mr Oddi to participate while using his crutches and I probably wouldn't withdraw my labour in that case. I enjoy the game too much! What interests me about this is the statement where you say, "2) an umpire cannot use crutches to determine that high school rules ban coaches on crutches." I'm not sure I understand this determination. Are they saying the crutches don't exist as a hazard-producing element? What? As far as I'm concerned, the fact he NEEDS crutches to be mobile, and those crutches represent a hazard on their own, is the ONLY reason I would consider excluding Mr Oddi. As I said if he could move around on his prosthetics without the crutches, and depending on the type of prosthetics involved, I would be less likely to want to exclude him.

BTW, not that it's especially significant here but I have worked with an umpire who has a prosthetic leg. He was a little slower than average getting to the plays when doing the bases, but no more so than able-bodied umpires with a weight, age or other minor mobility problem for example. It was at the 1998 Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships), and he was good enough to get to that level without his disability being an issue. We aren't entirely backward in the Antipodes, you know!

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
I looked back into my archives to find this post by Rich Fronheiser to another Board on May 6, 2000
Paraplegic Can Coach on Field

Sometimes baseball is just a game and sometimes it is a challenge.

Given the above quote, obviously Mr Barrios was more challenged than most baseball coaches. I thought SIGNALS were de rigeur for instructing base coaches on whether or not to send runners. I've never yet seen a set of baseball coaching signals that required the person giving them use his legs! What precluded Mr Barrios from using signals instead of his voice, I wonder? However, barring him from the field during pitching changes seems a whole lot less defensible, IMHO.

Sounds to me like there may have been equal measures of justification and positive discrimination (aka affirmative action) in this ruling.

Cheers,

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DJWickham
The actual facts concerning Mr. Oddi (from the wire service) are that he has been a high school coach for 11 years, and has been head coach (in PA, head coaches act as a base coach) for 5 years without any problem. He served as a base coach for 3 years without anyone even making a comment until 1999 when 2 umpires said he couldn't be on the field. The association then addressed the issue and permitted him to continue as a base coach. He then continued to do his job, again without incident, for the 1999 and 2000 season. His team was co-champion in 1999. Thus, he proved he was able to do the job safely for 5 years. If any balls or players came near the third base coaches box for 5 years, he was able to get out of the way.

Dennis:

You've obviously never watched games where a physically handicapped coach was in the box. As I said in my first post about this subject, I watched OUR coach on crutches in many games. The games were never played according to the rules. Routine foul popups went unchased because kids had been warned not to hit the coach: "He can't get out of the way."

I know we have fat and lazy coaches who may have problems clearing the area. But they don't have 10 pounds of metal strapped to their arms either.

It is the height of selfishness for someone who poses a distinct risk to put himself and his emotions ahead of the well-being of the players.

In law a potent principle is "the appearance of impropriety." In sports a crippled coach on crutches or in a wheelchair certainly presents "the appearance of a hazard."

Crutches are dangerous enough. What about a wheelchair? Here's what happens when the law becomes PC and is used to police areas far from the intent of the original legislation:

[In 1988] the Nebraska Supreme Court overturned an Amateur Softball Association of America rule barring a coach in a wheelchair from the field, the court holding that banishing wheelchair-bound coaches from the coaching box constitutes unlawful discrimination based solely on a person's physical disability. (BRD Section 111, 1993)

The national office of Little League Baseball, Inc., in July, 1992, stopped an Arizona coach from participating in a sanctioned tournament because he was restricted to a wheelchair. A district judge overturned the ruling: Apparently, equal opportunity is more important than the safety of young ballplayers. In spite of the Nebraska and Arizona decisions, in your NCAA and PRO games [FED at that time prohibited such coahces] I recommend that you do not permit on the field any players or coaches who, because they require non-traditional equipment, may pose a hazard to other game participants or umpires. One day, someone is going to be seriously injured, and the resulting court case will inevitably make its way to the United States Supreme Court, where I hope sanity will finally prevail. (BRD, Section 115, 1995.

Now, Dennis, tell me what happens: My association tells me not to allow Coach Smith on the field in his wheelchair. The Federal district court orders me not to discriminate against the coach. I let him on. A third base becomes tangled in the chair, falls, and permanently wrecks his knee. He's already been drafted by the New York Yankees. So his father, a personal injury lawyer, sues the coach, the league, me, my association, and the Federal judge who probably never walked onto a baseball diamond in his life.

That judge is certainly partly responsible for the injury because his order creates the potential for danger.

Say I build a swimming pool in my back yard, which is surrounded by a ten-foot wooden fence. If I leave the gate unlocked, I am liable when an uninvited neighborhood kid hops in and drowns. I used to know the legal term, but it's something like an "attractive danger." The kids know they're not supposed to trespass, but the water is so inviting.

The judge who commands us to put a coach in the box has created the same potential for danger. It's not a matter of individual discrimination; it's "class" discrimination: Nobody comes onto my field in non-traditional "garb" if it presents a clear and present danger to all.

Who hears the suit where a Federal judge is one of the defendants?

BTW: While I'm yelling and screaming, let me talk about the PRO golfer who can't walk while he's playing a tournament round. If the court mandates a cart for him, every player should be permitted to use a cart. Walking 8000 yards, with its attendant fatigue, is part of the game, isn't it? Wouldn't he be fresher on the 18th green than anybody else in that round?

Everyone knows I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat -- and proud of it. But enough is enough!

[Jim Porter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

I used to know the legal term, but it's something like an "attractive danger."

Papa C.,

The legal term you're looking for is attractive nuisance. This could also include ladders left up, old refrigerators with their doors still intact, unsecured trunks of junk cars, etc.

[umpyre007]

...is that as an independent contractor through my association I refuse to accept the assignment. I just don't need the additional distractions.

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Papa C.,

The legal term you're looking for is attractive nuisance. This could also include ladders left up, old refrigerators with their doors still intact, unsecured trunks of junk cars, etc.

Jim:

Thanks. As a matter of fact, I first typed "attractive nuisance," and then I thought (sometimes a dangerous event in the elderly): How the hell can a swimming pool be a nuisance? So....

I should have written: The term is "attractive nuisance," but I don't have the foggiest notion of why.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DJWickham
The Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") is the law, and umpires who refuse to abide by the federal law (where applicable) will find themselves rightfully sued, without any insurance coverage, and paying a large amount for attorneys fees (both for themselves and for the plaintiff). Umpires who ignore a court order will find themselves in jail. Federal judges don't abide by Rule 9.02(a).

The ADA is about prejudice.
Only a few years ago, umpires were refusing to call games where minorities sought to play with white men. I suspect that eventually we'll learn to deal with our fears about the disabled. But, unless we are willing to assess risk based on the individual involved, we're simply dealing with prejudice.

First off I believe no-one is discriminating here. Your analogy to race is IMO way off base . I believe most who posted here are not saying a coach on crutches or in a wheelchair can not be an active participant in the game, but there needs to be some restrictions.

Whats wrong with the coach giving the line-up card to the UIC / changing pitchers - In other words, whenever there is a dead ball situation, allow the disabled individual to do everything other coaches can.

Let me give you an example; In the LL association I belong to we have a coach in the SR Girls Softball Program who is blind. Believe me he is very active and an inspiration to us all.

Now for obvious reasons he cannot coach either 1st / 3rd base during live ball so we allow this coach to use a " Walkie-Talkie" with his third base coach. By allowing this, the coach is every bit a part of the game, but he isn't jeopardizing the safety of the other players.

I think anyone handicapped or disabled that wants to be part of sports is Fantastic, but there needs to be restrictions. When you have a person in a wheelchair or crutches, the game changes.

A normal play which we will probably see every game is a foul pop-up outside the first / third base foul lines. If the first / third base coach is on crutches or in a wheelchair, chances are players will be skeptical about making plays in that direction.

Now if one coach can participate in a wheelchair or crutches what about both coaches. Therefore, technically we could have both a first / third base coach who is diabled in the coaching boxes.

To me discriminate means - You do not want any part of and that simply isn't the case here. I'm willing to work with anybody as long as they are willing to work with me. It's a 2 way street. Also, in all honesty if a coach is worth his weight in gold , he / she wouldn't want to jeopardize the safety of another player.

With the exception of coaching in the boxes, a disabled coach can still be a very active member of the team.

Pete Booth

[bluezebra]

Carl, et al:

If a court says we cannot keep a handicapped coach out of the coaches' box, what keeps us from being exempt from being sued if we refuse to allow him in there? The only recourse we have, as some of you have done, and as I have done in a travel softball league I used to work, is to refuse to work his games. In that softball league, there was a manager in a wheelchair. Fortunately, he was aware of his mobility problem, and did not go into the box. He was more concerned with the safety of the players than with his "rights". Somewhere, some day, the courts will look at the WHOLE picture and think of the players' safety first.

Bob