Balloon sighting!

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not like he has to have to balloon protector to protect his arm either. And this is not an ADA situation as every person with a disability would not be reasonably allowed to umpire or officiate as they could cause harm to other players or themselves. Does he use a protector on the bases too? After all he could get hit there as well. And he is an independent contractor so a lot of decisions he makes about moving up are based on decisions he would have to make. And I am sure working as an umpire is not right, it is a privileged and if a player could not play for such reasons there is only so much accommodation that can be made to allow that player to continue to play as well.

Peace

JRut:

You're way wrong on this one, buddy. 1) The balloon provides him the greatest amount of protection. Sure, there might be other ways to protect himself (I knew a different guy who wore soccer shingards on his arm ... no lie!) 2) You obviously do not understand the ADA. The law (and most rule codes specifically acknowledge the need to) allow for reasonable accomodations. Wearing a balloon is neither a danger to the participants or to the umpire. After all, they were worn by plate umpires for decades. Each situation and accomodation is decided on individually. Just because one person is allowed a particular accomodation doesn't mean that somebody else will get theirs. For instance, somebody using an electric wheelchair IS a danger to others and would not be allowed. 3) He could also get into a car wreck on the way to the game, but to my knowledge he does not wear a balloon protector while driving to the game.

There is no good reason not to allow this guy to move up. In fact, it might be an actionable situation (i.e.: discriminatory) for him to be denied for merely choosing to wear a balloon style. Rule 10-2-1 of the NFHS Rules Book requires the use of a chest protector, but it does not indicate a specific style.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

JRut:

You're way wrong on this one, buddy. 1) The balloon provides him the greatest amount of protection. Sure, there might be other ways to protect himself (I knew a different guy who wore soccer shingards on his arm ... no lie!) 2) You obviously do not understand the ADA. The law (and most rule codes specifically acknowledge the need to) allow for reasonable accomodations. Wearing a balloon is neither a danger to the participants or to the umpire. After all, they were worn by plate umpires for decades. Each situation and accomodation is decided on individually. Just because one person is allowed a particular accomodation doesn't mean that somebody else will get theirs. For instance, somebody using an electric wheelchair IS a danger to others and would not be allowed. 3) He could also get into a car wreck on the way to the game, but to my knowledge he does not wear a balloon protector while driving to the game.

You obviously either do not understand what I said or you do not understand what ADA is for. Let me ask you a question. Do you have a lawsuit where someone won based on ADA to officiate any level of game? If there is not such a lawsuit you might have a hard to time get a court to say anyone has violated ADA if he has other options to umpire. There have been many lawsuits lost based on ADA because it was not appropriate for the particular industry or activity. I guess the military would be violating ADA if they did not allow a disabled person to serve in the military or if they discharged someone after they were clearly injured or disabled while serving? That last part happens all the time.

Also it is not like his only option is to use the protector. He could put something directly on his arm or he could put his arm behind his back. I am certain there is something he could do other than using a balloon protector if the only fear is him getting hit in the arm and damaging his arm further. And let us just change the sport, would a football official have to use a balloon protector too and if not they people that hired them? There are a lot of ways to get hurt than a ball hitting you and those that do officiate take some risk to participate.

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

There is no good reason not to allow this guy to move up. In fact, it might be an actionable situation (i.e.: discriminatory) for him to be denied for merely choosing to wear a balloon style. Rule 10-2-1 of the NFHS Rules Book requires the use of a chest protector, but it does not indicate a specific style.

Seriously I doubt that any one umpire is not going to move up just because of one issue. Also it is laughable that you use the NF rules to justify this when how people move up or do not move up have little to do what is in a book. First of all states/organizations can completely ignore that standard or use their own for their umpires. You know like what color shirts their where and what other equipment they use. The NF has no power to decide what folks wear or what other levels decide.

Also if discrimination is your point of view, then there are a lot of people that would have that claim and it would not be based on ADA. I do not see those lawsuits flying out the door either. And I can tell you there is more evidence of discrimination based on race or gender than there ever would be for ADA from an officiating standpoint.

The reason many people do not use the balloon protector anymore is because it limits movement and as it might protect you initially, it certainly does not endorse good movement as you have to carry around this big *** contraption to just start to run from one place to another. I have yet to see an umpire do that smoothly or get to where they need to without being a little clumsy. That is the bigger problem, not just how it looks.

Also I work almost all varsity and up in my games and I rarely get hit at all. I can go through a season and count on one hand how many times I get hit outside of my equipment by a baseball. And in some cases that only happens 1 or 2 times an entire season.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

I see no issue with pointing to first WITH YOUR LEFT HAND on ball 4 if you are doing a level so low that batters don't know what to do on ball 4 or even that you've reached ball 4. But any REAL level, don't do it.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You obviously either do not understand what I said or you do not understand what ADA is for. Let me ask you a question. Do you have a lawsuit where someone won based on ADA to officiate any level of game? If there is not such a lawsuit you might have a hard to time get a court to say anyone has violated ADA if he has other options to umpire. There have been many lawsuits lost based on ADA because it was not appropriate for the particular industry or activity. I guess the military would be violating ADA if they did not allow a disabled person to serve in the military or if they discharged someone after they were clearly injured or disabled while serving? That last part happens all the time.

Also it is not like his only option is to use the protector. He could put something directly on his arm or he could put his arm behind his back. I am certain there is something he could do other than using a balloon protector if the only fear is him getting hit in the arm and damaging his arm further. And let us just change the sport, would a football official have to use a balloon protector too and if not they people that hired them? There are a lot of ways to get hurt than a ball hitting you and those that do officiate take some risk to participate.



Seriously I doubt that any one umpire is not going to move up just because of one issue. Also it is laughable that you use the NF rules to justify this when how people move up or do not move up have little to do what is in a book. First of all states/organizations can completely ignore that standard or use their own for their umpires. You know like what color shirts their where and what other equipment they use. The NF has no power to decide what folks wear or what other levels decide.

Also if discrimination is your point of view, then there are a lot of people that would have that claim and it would not be based on ADA. I do not see those lawsuits flying out the door either. And I can tell you there is more evidence of discrimination based on race or gender than there ever would be for ADA from an officiating standpoint.

The reason many people do not use the balloon protector anymore is because it limits movement and as it might protect you initially, it certainly does not endorse good movement as you have to carry around this big *** contraption to just start to run from one place to another. I have yet to see an umpire do that smoothly or get to where they need to without being a little clumsy. That is the bigger problem, not just how it looks.

Also I work almost all varsity and up in my games and I rarely get hit at all. I can go through a season and count on one hand how many times I get hit outside of my equipment by a baseball. And in some cases that only happens 1 or 2 times an entire season.

Peace

Allright, Jeff. Good discussion. You raise some good points, but you fail to recognize mine. Fine.

The bigger point here is this guy has been told he's looking at the amputation of his arm if he takes a direct shot. To him, he's limiting the risk as much as possible in order to do something he loves. He's disappointed he can't move up, but I believe he's come to terms with it. There is nothing unreasonable about wearing a balloon protector and in my opinion shouldn't be denied an opportunity to advance. He has been told EXACTLY why he won't move up: not because he's not worthy, but because he uses a balloon protector. He's explained why he does and he's been told it doesn't matter. To me, that is a potentially discriminatory decision.

There's a term in the ADA called "Reasonable Accomodation." You should look it up. That would help you understand why your unrealistic and unreasonable (i.e.: to use your word, "laughable") scenarios do not apply.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I see no issue with pointing to first WITH YOUR LEFT HAND on ball 4 if you are doing a level so low that batters don't know what to do on ball 4 or even that you've reached ball 4. But any REAL level, don't do it.

If a batter is that oblivious (or inexperienced, or whatever) I just repeat, "That's ball four, batter. Take your base".

[MikeStrybel]

I've related this story before. Juco game a decade or so ago, with two rivals with coaches who were in place for twenty years+ each. 3-1 count and the pitch is wide. The offensive team is the home team and their team mates are operating a HUGE scoreboard and announcing walk ups. The batter steps out for another sign and the catcher looks back at me. I shake my head. The batter steps in and here comes another pitch for one up and tight. He jumps out and looks for another sign as he adjusts his gloves. The pitcher is laughing, the opposing bench is practically rolling on the stairs. The HC finally figures out that they aren't laughing at the last pitch and yells, "Blue, what's the count?" I look at the pitcher and say, "5 and 1". The HC is on his way towards home, snapping that I have to tell his batter that he has walked. He is livid. I tell him that it's his job to coach and that his player is in college. I look back at the press box and nod their way while saying that his team is controlling the scoreboard and microphone too. He kicks the dirt and tells his guy to go to first. My partners did their best to keep from falling down laughing. (Yes, I know that if he had hit ball 5 for a home run the aftermath would have been pretty awful when the defense complained about the BB. It didn't happen, so I don't want to get into that.)

FWIW, LLWS umpires have to do a bunch of things that some umpires find troublesome. A colleague worked it in the late 90s and said that he was told to dust off the pitching plate and 2B (while working second) and his partners did the same with 1B and 3B. They were told to indicate BB with the point and all were to hold up their hands on foul balls, even when they were on the other side of the field. He did what he was told and enjoyed the trip.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

FWIW, LLWS umpires have to do a bunch of things that some umpires find troublesome. A colleague worked it in the late 90s and said that he was told to dust off the pitching plate and 2B (while working second) and his partners did the same with 1B and 3B. They were told to indicate BB with the point and all were to hold up their hands on foul balls, even when they were on the other side of the field. He did what he was told and enjoyed the trip.

Those things have all changed. If you watch a well-trained umpire (and one of them works D3 in the conferences I used to work and worked the WIAC tourney the last two years), none of them do this.

They do have to keep the teams into the dugout, though, until told to release them. LONG commercials, after all.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Allright, Jeff. Good discussion. You raise some good points, but you fail to recognize mine. Fine.

I recognize your point, I just do not agree with it. For one nothing we have discussed has been specifically litigated and neither you or I are lawyers in that field and I am sure some lawyers would disagree about how ADA would or would not apply in this situation. You know, the same disagreement that lawyers have about our liability with things we do on the field.

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

The bigger point here is this guy has been told he's looking at the amputation of his arm if he takes a direct shot. To him, he's limiting the risk as much as possible in order to do something he loves. He's disappointed he can't move up, but I believe he's come to terms with it. There is nothing unreasonable about wearing a balloon protector and in my opinion shouldn't be denied an opportunity to advance. He has been told EXACTLY why he won't move up: not because he's not worthy, but because he uses a balloon protector. He's explained why he does and he's been told it doesn't matter. To me, that is a potentially discriminatory decision.

This is all interesting as you keep referring to a law that may or may not apply to this situation. For one you just said he cannot move up and did it ever occur to you that he cannot move up because of his abilities and not what equipment he might use? Better yet he is umpiring right? So how has he been discriminated to umpire? He might not move up for all kinds of reasons and the balloon protector might be a factor, but it certainly does not have to be the only factor. ADA also covers people that are considered obese as well and I doubt that would be an excuse for being able to umpire or move up as you seem to suggest. Your friend has decided to only use that method to protect his arm as opposed to other methods that I suggested or might have been suggested to him. I doubt seriously that is an ADA issue when he has other options. But hey, why not have him file a lawsuit, but that might mean other things are revealed about why he is not moving up. Most people are not honest with themselves when it comes to that issue anyway about why they are not moving up. Just because you say that is the reason does not make it so.

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

There's a term in the ADA called "Reasonable Accomodation." You should look it up. That would help you understand why your unrealistic and unreasonable (i.e.: to use your word, "laughable") scenarios do not apply.

I do not need you to tell me what to read unless you are a lawyer or you have litigated these cases personally or your friend takes this to court. You have no idea what a court might say about his situation and just saying that someone must use a balloon protector is not going to be the end of such a case. The court would explore if this guy had other options. And your friend umpires so I am trying to figure out how he has been discriminated against.

Peace

[APG]

Just want to inform everyone and bob that this is not the real JRut rather someone whom has added a period to the end of their username to appear as JRut.

[MrUmpire]

The Deej Strikes again.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

And he's now back to sending me private messages and e-mails making inhumane comments about my deceased father. It's been over five years since the fiasco that was Walter Rucker's forum was closed, and still Donovan and Walter persist in this insane game of theirs. It's beyond sad.........


Don't feel that you're alone in this, Jeff. Just write it off as the ramblings of a mad-man. Donovan is good at figuring ways to get around having his IP address blocked, and will be back time and time again in these short bursts. The forum just has to recognize it's him and ask to have him washed from the group again.


I'm sure I'll now read a post from one of them about how lazy, fat, unemployed, and perverse I am. McGriffs had nothing on these two.............


Tim.

This just reminded me of McGriffs. It was kind of funny that someone really has that much time on their hands.

Peace

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

There's a term in the ADA called "Reasonable Accomodation." You should look it up. That would help you understand why your unrealistic and unreasonable (i.e.: to use your word, "laughable") scenarios do not apply.

IANAL, but ADA doesn't apply in this situation.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I see no issue with pointing to first WITH YOUR LEFT HAND on ball 4 if you are doing a level so low that batters don't know what to do on ball 4 or even that you've reached ball 4. But any REAL level, don't do it.

Except for the fact that the batter is looking at the pitcher when he takes ball four. Might as well tell him w/ your voice.

[wentdl]

Oh yeah she called a bad game, lot of hoopla about her and she stinks. There were quiet a number of bummers again . For all the work these kids put into getting there I think they could do a better job of screening the umps they use rather than being nominated by the good ol boy system.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by wentdl

Oh yeah she called a bad game, lot of hoopla about her and she stinks. There were quiet a number of bummers again . For all the work these kids put into getting there I think they could do a better job of screening the umps they use rather than being nominated by the good ol boy system.

Thanks for bringing up this new perspective. I don't believe we have discussed it before.