Anyone else see the following new release:

"A truck accident in 1993 left David Oddi a double amputee.
But the high school baseball coach will continue to stand in the third base coaching box - supported by two prothetic legs and crutches - following settlement of a federal lawsuit.
Oddi sued the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association on Thursday over a March 1 ruling that said he could not stand in the box because he uses crutches."

Yeah, I saw it.

Now let's see who he sues when he can't get out of the way of a foul liner fast enough and it makes a permanent indentation in his skull...or when he can't move out of the way of the cather, third baseman, pitcher and runner in time before they take out his crutches, artificial legs and one kidney.

GB

Next you know umpires will have to decide for themselves whether or not the potential for safety problems outweighs the necessity of playing a game under these circumstances. At what point then does an umpire decide to just walk away from a game like this one and refuse to umpire the game? What next; umpires being sued under the ADA because they refuse to umpire a game of this nature and therefore are discriminating against handicapped people? :(

I work in the association of the PIAA which handles the schedule of West Allegheny, which is Oddi's school. There is a story on the front page of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's Saturday, March 24, edition.

nightmares, nothing but nightmares.....
 

Wow, I'm I glad I took this spring HS season off!
Worse yet, what happens when the 3rd baseman covers the foul fly ball, runs over the coach, and then gets a crutch in the groin?
Why do I see a deep-pockets lawsuit in the making.....

I concur with your thinking here, U7. One thing does NOT preclude the other. The fact that the PIAA can't prevent Mr Oddi from participating does NOT mean the umpire should allow it despite the obvious safety grounds for doing otherwise. The law requires us to try to prevent injuries that could be foreseen by a reasonable person, as part of our Duty of Care. Our insurance coverage is predicated in an expectation that we will adopt that approach.

Bottom line? Mr Oddi would not be hobbling onto <i>my</i> diamond with his crutches. If he could make it there on his prosthetic limbs alone, that might be another story depending on the type of prosthesis being used. Although most of the Internet umpire world will be shocked at the prospect, I also agree with HOLDTHE when he suggests that this ruling doesn't "make a lot of sense".

Cheers,

when can we expect your arrival.....
 

see what your missing by living downunder. In all that heat and sunshine. THIS, is the land of opportunity! I could go on; but, I know it would be censored.....

Warren:

After a court ordered that this coach could wear his crutches in the coaches' box, and you refuse to allow him to do so, you are going to be one moneyless dude after you're sued.

Bob

Bob:

Gosh, 0 for March? Note: I had "grin" here, but I put it inside greater/lesser signs and it didn't print.

The court suit determined only that the State Association could not forbid him to coach in the box. It says nothing (according to what I read) about individual umpires and their judgment about the safety of the players.

We had a coach in one of my leagues who used two crutches as well. He had signed permission from the League because he had personally indemnified the league, its officers, umpires, and players: If he caused injury, he paid. (This was long before ADA, though.)

Was that fair? No. Kids simply wouldn't go near him, so when he was on the field, the game was not played according to the rules. After seeing him many times (I called usually on an adjoining field) my training schedule caused me to wind up in the Bronco park. I called 1/2 inning of one game and decided I wanted no part of it. The candidate umpire stayed to finish alone; he needed the money.

So, I took the coward's way out, but I was the UIC of the League and felt I owed some allegiance to the officers who hired me. At any rate, he stayed and I went.

In Warren's game, I bet it would be the other way around.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 26th, 2001 at 04:16 AM]

Bob,

You say "..wear his crutches.." as though we are talking about leg calipers or something. Or do you envisage the sort of metal crutches that have a metal band through which the user inserts his/her arms? I don't believe it is the former, and if it were the latter I think can EXCLUDE the base coach BY RULE! I know this will start a brouhaha, but I've never been afraid to speak my mind before so why stop now? (grin)

OBR 1.11(a.3), 1.11(f), 2.00 Definition of A Base Coach and 4.05(b.1) would all operate together for me to say that a base coach "wearing" metal crutches is NOT entitled to be on the playing field under the rules of the game because his uniform is illegal and doesn't conform to that of his team mates. I'd like to see someone try to sue an umpire for enforcing the rules of the game! How's <i>that</i> for tap dancing? (BIG grin)

Cheers,

Re: when can we expect your arrival.....
 

Rog, do I detect a note of disappointment with my position in your "THIS, is the land of opportunity" statement? If so, then I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do. Just expressing my own view on the subject. I realise it's much easier to do that from 14,000 km away.

Mr Oddi has my sympathy, but I believe the RISK of SERIOUS INJURY he represents to others, as a dangerous implement-carrying immobile presence in the coach's box, FAR outweighs his personal rights and liberties. If there were a way to give him what he clearly wants and needs WITHOUT the attendant risks to others, I would be the very FIRST to welcome him onto my diamond, believe me.

As for censorship, we have communicated perfectly well in the past without resorting to terminology that risks the ire of the moderator. Why should this issue be any different?

Of course, it is perfectly possible that I have misunderstood your intentions on both counts. If so, I'm sure we can sort out what you really meant with no harm done either way.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 26th, 2001 at 02:46 AM]

yup, you missed the point on this one...
 

I was simply remarking about how THIS country and its court mandated freedoms can sometimes be a challange to others. But, that just make things more interesting some days.
Sometimes a batter may think an umpire is calling too big a zone. He simply HAS to make the adjustment and get the bat on the ball if he can.
Now, umpires' have an adjustment to make, or not? Perhaps this too will make for some interesting games!

No harm - no foul my friend.....

<i> Originally posted by Carl Childress </i>

<b> We had a coach in one of my leagues who used two crutches as well. He had signed permission from the League because he had personally indemnified the league, its officers, umpires, and players: If he caused injury, he paid. (This was long before ADA, though.) </b>


Papa C, in FED rule 1-1-5, the following terminology is used:

When an umpire observes anyone who is required to wear a batting helmet deliberately remove his batting helmet while in live ball territory and the ball is alive <b> (NON-ADULT BALL / BAT SHAGGERS required to wear batting helmit in live-ball area even if ball is dead), </b> the umpires shall issue a warning to the coach

and

While in the crouch position, <b> ANY NON-ADULT </b> warming up a pitcher at any location shall wear a head protector, a mask with a throat protector and protective cup (male only).

The point of the above is that the FED explicily uses the term <b> NON-ADULT </b> in their wording, which to me means that adults are not subject to the same safety provisions as the ball players.

With that said, what's the difference between a coach warming up F1 (with no protection) and a coach who is in the box with crutches?. Both could result in injury, so why would Blue or the league be in jeopardy of a lawsuit when the FED wording regarding player and adult is exlplicit?

I'm assuming (boy that could get me in trouble), that the FED checked this wording out with the insurance companies before they wrote it.

Pete Booth

Pete:

First, as I made clear in my post, the coach was in the Bronco division of Pony, Inc. I have never seen a high school coach in Texas with crutches or anything like crutches. Sorry, but the school board just wouldn't hire a coach who couldn't slide into second base.

Second, the danger of a non-adult on crutches is not what he might do to himself but what he might do to others. A coach warming up a pitcher without a cup or a helmet puts only <b>himself</b> at jeopardy. A coach in the box with two metal crtuches puts everybody in jeopardy.

That's the difference, as I see it.

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]

<i> Originally posted by PAblue87 </i>
<b> 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. </b>

Sounds like your HS association should write a letter to the PIAA expressing their concerns and get a ruling <b> from them </b> 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 <i> field day </i> with this.

Pete Booth

Obey The Law! (rant coming)
 

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.

Re: Obey The Law! (rant coming)
 

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 <u>governing Association's right</u> 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, <i>in theory</i>, 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 <i><b><u>foresee</u></b></i> 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,

How mobile is he?
 

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".

I would visit you, Warren
 

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]

I would also bring Warren a cake.
 

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...

Coaches in wheelchairs allowed on field
 

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.

Re: I would visit you, Warren
 

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)

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.

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; <i>prove there is no injury risk before subjecting the participants to that risk</i>.

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! :D

Cheers,

Re: Coaches in wheelchairs allowed on field
 

Given the above quote, obviously Mr Barrios was more challenged than most baseball coaches. I thought SIGNALS were <i>de rigeur</i> 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,

Re: I would visit you, Warren
 

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:<ul>[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)</ul><ul>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.</ul>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!

Re: Re: I would visit you, Warren
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

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 <i>attractive nuisance</i>. This could also include ladders left up, old refrigerators with their doors still intact, unsecured trunks of junk cars, etc.

My final answer, Regis...
 

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

Re: Re: Re: I would visit you, Warren
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: 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 <i>attractive nuisance</i>. 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.

Re: Obey The Law! (rant coming)
 

<i> Originally posted by DJWickham </i>
<b> 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. </b>

First off I believe no-one is discriminating here. Your analogy to race is IMO <i> way off base </i>. 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 - <b> You do not want any part of </b> 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 <i> worth his weight in gold </i>, 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

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

The answer to the personal injury liability question is remarkably similar to the ADA question: conduct an individualized assessment of the risk. Deciding who can be on the field based upon a factual investigation of the particular coach's capabilities means: first, you've met the requirements of the ADA even if you conclude that there is an actual safety isssue that can't be accomodated. Second, you've met the test for negligence if you have taken reasonable steps to identify and avoid risks of injury not inherent in the game even if you conclude that there is no basis to ban the person from the field.

Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced. They can calmly and rationally discuss their point of view, but it usually is based on the belief that all [whatever] are the same. If we can't see a disabled person as an individual and see past the crutches and the wheelchair, we are prejudiced.

Baseball is a game in which there always is a risk of personal injury. The issue always is how much risk is acceptable. In each of the cases I read under the ADA, the coach, like Mr. Oddi, had been on the field for several years without any incident. Indeed, we've all seen collisions with a base coach who was not disabled but distracted. That's part of the game as well. The leagues lose under the ADA when they can't say why they banned this person and identify a specific risk that this person imposed.

Umpires can take a leading role in this world. Rather than make a ruling based on fear and assumption ("no crutches on my field"), the umpire can make a ruling based on the law. ("Coach, we need to have the league or association perform an individualized assessment of your abilities and the risks of any injury before I can let you on my field.")

It's up to each of us to decide what to do. But, umpires who believe they are above the law won't be umpiring in the future. No league or association can afford to carry those who won't or can't follow the ADA.

As to Casey Martin, I still can't figure out why the PGA claims that golf carts are inconsistent with the game of golf when every golf course makes me rent one.

I agree that "Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced." I would also suggest that there are two types of prejudice; positive and negative. There are a lot positively prejudiced people who don't believe they are prejudiced. The fact is that people in wheelchairs, or on crutches, ARE different than people who don't need either of these aids. Sure, they are still people with all their attendant wants, needs and desires. They are just not as capable of some tasks. That's a simple fact, not a statement of prejudice. To argue otherwise is to be deluded by a positive prejudice. I'm perfectly willing to see "past" the crutches and the wheelchair, where the circumstances allow me to do so without putting others at risk. However, I cannot blind myself to the all the possibilities simply because there is a wanting, needing individual who is desirous that I do so.

Sure, I can happily go with the individualised assessment, and not mentally place all people with wheelchairs or crutches in the same category as each other. That's easy. However, all people with wheelchairs or crutches ARE in the same category with respect to each other for at least <i>one</i> thing; they ALL NEED that individualised assessment or they don't bring their wheelchairs or crutches onto my field. If that represents prejudice, then so be it. I have no qualms being positively prejudiced toward the well being of ALL participants on my diamond.

Now, see Dennis, THAT'S prejudice! No-one here, including me, has put themselves "above the law" on this issue. You are still finding it difficult to acknowledge that the Law speaks to people and groups of people differently. Yes, Dennis, the Law discriminates. If the ADA in this case says to the PIAA that they can't exclude Mr Oddi, that is NOT the same as saying that the umpire association must accept Mr Oddi too! Can you at least understand and accept that?

When and if the ADA speaks directly to the umpire association and its members, or indirectly by direction of the PIAA, demanding they accept Mr Oddi then the individual umpires will have one last decision to make; either obey the law or stop officiating baseball. Until then, however, the law has NOT spoken to the umpires and they remain entitled to make their individual choices without being accused of contempt for the law! The direction it gave, after all, was NOT to them!

Again, Dennis, you are refusing to see the wood for the irons. The PGA deals with <i>Professional</i> golf, and your golf course is dealing with an <i>amateur</i> golfer. Professional golfers do NOT use golf carts. Anyone who has ever watched tournament golf can attest to that fact. You will notice that professional golfers don't use hand buggys either! It's just not part of the professional game. If you start making a "special" exception for one golfer because he has a disability, you have disadvantaged ALL of the others who aren't disabled unless you also give them the right to use the aid. Yes, a golf cart is an aid. Why? Because it helps to keep the golfer fresher and fitter for longer.

Dennis, I can appreciate and respect your enthusiasm to play your part in ensuring that negative prejudice and unfair discrimination does NOT figure in our great game. I share that desire. I do so with my eyes open, however. I am not blind to the valid consideration that must be given to the differences these people must deal with in order to participate. If that is all you are asking, you have your agreement. However, in providing the "individualised assessments" of which you speak, please don't ask me to put other participants at risk in the process. That would defeat the whole purpose of the having the assessment in the first place.

In terms of understanding the risk, BTW, rolling the dice is a simple analogy. If you roll the dice a thousand times and do not roll a six even once, the overall risk that a six will be rolled next time around is MUCH GREATER, even if the individual probability remains 1:6 that a six will be rolled. That mathematical principle applies to Mr Oddi, too. If there is <i>any</i> geniune risk, however small its individual probability, that an injury <i>will</i> occur, that otherwise might NOT occur but for the presence of Mr Oddi's crutches in the coach's box, the fact that he has carried them on the diamond for 5 years only INCREASES that risk rather than reducing it.

Cheers,

Gasp, choke, wheeze
 

This going to be really hard for me,


I agree with Warren (that's the hard part) on Casey Martin.

There I've said it . . . . arrrrrg!

I agree with Warren, coach would not be in uniform of his team and I believe the rules also say a base coach can have nothing in his hands or person but a scorebook.
Interesting subject though!!

Bake17

baloney
 

I thought I'd seen a lot of baloney when I worked in a meat-packing plant, but here's a new bunch, even within the context of all the amateur legal advice bouncing around this thread. ha! ha!

If there is any geniune risk, however small its individual probability, that an injury will occur, that otherwise might NOT occur but for the presence of Mr Oddi's crutches in the coach's box, the fact that he has carried them on the diamond for 5 years only INCREASES that risk rather than reducing it.

Warren, I think we agree on many of the issues of principle (other than whether I will have to bring you a cake (gr).

Most umpires (including me) would prefer to have the disabled prove it is safe for them to be on the field. I don't have the scientific training or access to the necessary data to perform a competent risk analysis. My league doesn't have the funds to employ an expert to advise us on the safety issues. I too don't want to see a serious injury to occur because of a wheelchair 6 feet from third base.

But, in the US, the law is clear and unambigous - - the burden is on those responsible for promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing the ban. As long as teams play in public parks, schools and facilities, the ADA will be the deciding force granting access to the disabled. I don't know of any judge who would tolerate an association not complying with an order to let a coach play on the grounds that the umpires refused to call the game. We can pretend that the law doesn't cover us, but any association or umpire actually faced with this situation will need better advice than simply ban them or walk.

You know it's going to be a tough game when you arrive at the field and see a court reporter.

A long tunnel, but we can see the light at the end...
 

Ok, with all the extraneous stuff out of the way under the heading of "a general agreement", the only issue we have remaining is WHEN the individual umpire will be required to enforce this decision under the ADA.

I say the umpire isn't required to enforce it simply by virtue of the ruling itself, and any direction given to the PIAA. I say that only the PIAA is <i>directly</i> bound by that court order. In order for the umpires to be equally bound by that decision, the PIAA has to formally advise its contracted official's association(s) that this is now a requirement for working in their league. That may even involve some changes to the contractual agreements between the two. THEN and only then, IMHO, will the umpires themselves also be bound by the ruling. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I am aware that you are somehow involved in the legal profession, so I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I'm trying to understand whether, under U.S. law, this is a clear legal precedent to be followed regardless of who received the court's order, or whether instead it is a specific ruling for a specific individual that is binding only on the body under its direction; the PIAA. IOW, I'm only looking for free legal advice as to the principles involved. ;) Personally, if I were an officer of the umpire association involved and given the attendant risk to indemnity insurance, I'd want independent legal advice on these points before I went ahead and starting opening the diamond to Mr Oddi and other people in his circumstances.

Cheers,

Re: baloney
 

Bravo! What a brilliantly insightful interjection of intelligent thought into this difficult and complex discussion! Well done, Caselli! :rolleyes:

I have no words to describe how I view your contribution, so this will have to do ... :p <i>brrrtttt!!!</i>

Cheers,

A quick update of the situation:
Just had are first rules meeting since the decision. PIAA has stated that ODDI may coach on the field during live play, and as umpires, we are not allowed to confine him to the dugout. We have also been notified that our umpire association is waived of all liability if an accident or injury should happen as a result of Oddi being on the field.
Also, no other coaches with crutches or other artificial devices are allowed on the field.

Fair enough. It couldn't be made any clearer than that! A decision that Mr Oddi as an individual is considered capable of remaining out of harms way, a waiver of any liability to the umpire for letting him be there, and a specific direction that this single ruling isn't a blanket precedent for others with similar implements. No problems. Play ball!

{<i>I think I might add a private congratulatory welcome and an admonition to Mr Oddi, the first time on my diamond, that I expected him to be particularly vigilant and alert while in the coach's box, for all our sakes. While I agree that might be construed as discriminatory, I believe it would equally be in the interests of other disabled coaches to ensure that Mr Oddi doesn't let them down by being careless while working his position.</i>}

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 28th, 2001 at 01:10 AM]

Sorry, but I still stand pat. What does your association say about umpires that do not wish to be assigned to these games?

Don' t go there! Simple.
 

Our association let's us scratch schools that we do NOT want to go.

I definitely would not go to this school.

They said the umpires association was not liabel. That's not worth anything in court. First time someone is injured, it's

<i> "off to court we go, off to court we go, hi ho the ...</i>

Simply it's too dangerous.

Coach from the bench.

Thanks
David

<i> Originally posted by DJWickham </i>

<b> Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced. They can calmly and rationally discuss their point of view, but it usually is based on the belief that all [whatever] are the same. If we can't see a disabled person as an individual and see past the crutches and the wheelchair, we are prejudiced.

Umpires can take a leading role in this world. Rather than make a ruling based on fear and assumption ("no crutches on my field"), the umpire can make a ruling based on the law. ("Coach, we need to have the league or association perform an individualized assessment of your abilities and the risks of any injury before I can let you on my field.")

It's up to each of us to decide what to do. But, umpires who believe they are above the law won't be umpiring in the future. No league or association can afford to carry those who won't or can't follow the ADA. </b>

Ok let's switch it around a bit. If a disabled person can coach on the bases then why can't a disabled person umpire a game?

What would the coaches reactions be if they saw a PU in a wheelchair or cructhes calling balls / strikes behind Home Plate? How about a BU in a wheelchair and/or crutches on the base-paths?

How long would any coaches association put up with this?

If we are going to allow a disabled coach to be involved in <b> live ball </b> activity then we have to allow disabled umpires to umpire a game otherwise we would be discriminating against umpires using your argument.

As I mentioned earlier, we are not saying to the disabled individual <b> You can't be involved at all </b>. We are saying let's use precaution, just as if a disabled umpire were allowed to umpire a game.

Pete Booth

Pete: Great question. The bad news is that there might not be a lawful basis to ban all disabled umpires. I think we'll see some litigation on this.

Warren: The law stuff is pretty boring, but it is a myth that a non-party is not subject to an injunction (at least in the US). Here' what one federal court said on the question:

"Nonparties are liable for contempt of an injunction if, with notice of the injunction, the nonparty aids or abets the enjoined party in the violation of the injunction or if the nonparty is a successor in interest to the property subject to litigation. Panther Pumps & Equipment Co. v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8, 12 (7th Cir. 1977). cert. denied, [*11] 435 U.S. 1013 (1978); Herrlein v. Kanakis, 526 F.2d 252, 254 (7th Cir. 1975); Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1056, 88 L. Ed. 2d 771, 106 S. Ct. 794 (1986). As the court stated in Chanel Industries, Inc. v. Pierre Marche, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 748, 753 (E.D. Mo. 1961):

'The injunction of the Court is binding upon the parties-defendant and those in privity with them so that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibitive acts through aiders and abettors although they were not parties to the original proceeding. . . . Courts have repeatedly held that if a person has actual knowledge of an injunction he may be amenable to it even where not a party to the suit and was not served with a copy of the injunction. . . . Id. at 753.'

The policy behind extending an injunction to non-party agents of enjoined defendants is simply to prevent defendants from indirectly nullifying a decree by carrying out prohibited acts [*12] through aiders and abettors or successors in interest. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14, 89 L. Ed. 661, 65 S. Ct. 478 (1945)."

As a practical matter, the judge won't care about what the umpires do as long as the game gets played in compliance with the order. If all umpires refuse to participate or if a game gets suspended because an umpire leaves the field, then someone may need their toothbrush. In the words of one of our local judges: "You may have come in through the front door, but you are going out the back door!"

[Edited by DJWickham on Mar 28th, 2001 at 12:34 PM]

Thanks, Dennis (nm)
 

I worked a game today involving Oddi. A lot of Press was there. Game went smooth. Mr. Oddi coached third without incident. He is an excellent H.S. coach and his teams are always competitive. It has been made clear that the umpires of the game will not be held liable, so I have no problem with working their. His teams are well coached and very respectful. I go to work a good baseball game and enjoy my job, the legality and lawsuits can be handled in another venue by Oddi and the PIAA, not on the diamond.