Coaching boxes

[Rog]

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."

[GarthB]

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

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by Rog
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."

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?

[PAblue87]

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.

[Rog]

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.....

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by umpyre007
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 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 my 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,

[Rog]

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.....

[bluezebra]

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bluezebra
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]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by bluezebra
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,

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 that for tap dancing? (BIG grin)

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rog
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.....

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]

[Rog]

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.....

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.)


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 (NON-ADULT BALL / BAT SHAGGERS required to wear batting helmit in live-ball area even if ball is dead), the umpires shall issue a warning to the coach

and

While in the crouch position, ANY NON-ADULT 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 NON-ADULT 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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.)


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 (NON-ADULT BALL / BAT SHAGGERS required to wear batting helmit in live-ball area even if ball is dead), the umpires shall issue a warning to the coach

and

While in the crouch position, ANY NON-ADULT 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 NON-ADULT 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 himself at jeopardy. A coach in the box with two metal crtuches puts everybody in jeopardy.

That's the difference, as I see it.

[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]