Extended Dugouts--Fed.

[bake17]

Howdy everyone..Would like some feedback on how this is being interpreted. Our association is having some difficulty on how to administer the rule. When you allow a coach to extend his dugout(to the outfield side), are we saying this will be an extension of the fenced protected dugout(all of our schools are required to have fencing in front of the dugouts) and let players stand in that area? Is liability at stake here or does the fact that the rule book says we can allow this extension cover us. And what about coaches being in the dugout? Is this allowing them a chance to get out from dugout to do their coaching??
Thanks in advance for any & all comments

Bake17

[Bfair]

IMO, the home team determines the ground rules for its field---that's in the book, correct? Our job is to assure ground rules are addressed and known, and to resolve any issues the visiting team may have with those ground rules. We then enforce within the game those agreed upon ground rules.

As long as we do our job per the book, are we at liability of negligence?


Freix

[Tim C]

In my area it is possible for an umpire to work 17 different leagues. It would be impossible for an umpire to know every, as you call it, "league rule", be it fencing in front of a dugout or white shirts in centerfield.

An umpire is directed to umpire by a set of rules. If we are working a FEDlandia game then we work FED rules. How could an umpire have any liability for calling a game by the prescribed rules?

Just a question . . .

[jicecone]

Our liability, is ONLY limited to the ABILITY of an attorney, to convince a judge that we are LIABLE.

[Tim C]

I ask for proof that an umpire has been found liable for following the rules as established by the league or Federation controlling said league.

Pretty simple request, no?

[Whowefoolin]

It seems post keep coming back to umpires being liable for something or another. NOT!!

Thinking you are liable is the first step to "over" umpiring.

Just know the rules and adjudge them. If there are ground rules, have both coaches/managers agree to them prior to the game. There goes the liability out the window. Now just follow the rules.

ANALYSM. Please don't be one of those kind of umps.

[GarthB]

Tim:

Could have an answer for you soon. The lawsuit against two of our members and our association should be wrapping up soon. Of course the weasels at the insurance company want to settle. We don't, but when you put the complaint in the insurance company's lawyer's hands you forfeit some rights. I'll keep you posted.

GB

[insatty]

As the only attorney in our organization, I try to educate our members on the real exposure we officials face.

Primarily, it is virtually impossible to hold an official liable for an injury to a fan or participant in or at a sporting event. Most states have what in California we call the primary-assumption-of-the-risk doctrine, which is an absolute defense to an injury lawsuit. Simply stated, fans at and participants in sporting events assume the risk of injuries associated with the activity. Unless one actively increases the risk of the sporting event by activities not normally associated with the activity, one owes no duty to prevent injuries and is not liable for those injuries. This applies to vitrually every official at an amateur and professional sporting event.

One caveat that bat manufacturers should note. A recent California appellate court reversed an assumption-of-the-risk finding in a suit by a Cal. State Northridge pitcher who was struck in the head by a line drive off of a new-age Demarini bat used by a USC hitter. The bat manufacturer and the NCAA, according to the court's opinion, in concert marketed the bats that promised that the ball would leave the bat at a greater speed, making hitters better. The hired-gun "experts" testified that a pitcher would have .37 seconds to react to a line drive off of a conventional aluminum bat, while the pitcher would only have .33 seconds to react to a line drive off of the new-age bat. That, said the justices, increased the risk of harm associated with the college D-1 game, and the jury should decide the case. If the NCAA gets tagged with one of the huge verdicts that plaintiff attorneys get in downtown L.A. courtrooms (called "the bank" by the plaintiff's bar), expect college and mens' leagues to bar metal bats and require only wooden bats.

But we officials should all have insurance available from many sources. Insurance will pay for our defense if we are sued. In return, the insurer maintains the right to settle the most meritless of lawsuits. Insurers settle to save on defense expenses. This is a political problem: liberal politicians are beholden to trial attorneys who finance their reelection campaigns. In return, the trial bar gains laws making it harder to defeat meritless lawsuits at an early stage making it economically advantageous to pay settlements rather than defending them through trial. Governor Gray Davis here in the people's republic of California recently signed such a bill to make it much harder for lawsuit victims to win summary-judgment motions. The insurance industry estimates that the average cost of liability insurance will increase $80 a year to pay for the costs of our Governor's gift to the trial bar.

As baseball becomes more expensive for leagues, fields, batting cages, officials, and teams because insurance rates keep increasing, we officials will have less games to officiate. But this is a subject for a future rant.

[Tim C]

VERY GOOD post . . .