Umpire arrested at HS baseball game

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Robmoz

Per the MHSAA Officials Guidebook:


UNREGISTERED OFFICIALS
Registered officials are never to work with anyone who does not hold current MHSAA registration in the sport. While it is the responsibility of the host school in particular and all schools in general to use only currently registered officials in those positions which require MHSAA registered officials (“Who Must Register,” page 3), each contracted official has a responsibility and obligation to assure that he/she works only with MHSAA registered officials.

If it is learned that an unregistered person is present to function as an official, the MHSAA registered official shall:
1) advise the host
2) remind the host that no MHSAA registered official may work any part of a contest with an unregistered person
3) delay the start of the contest until a replacement is provided
4) work the contest only with the registered officials present with the mutual consent of all schools
5) postpone the contest.

It is never an option to accept or use the services of an unregistered official.

This sounds like union/state bullying to me. If you ain't a dues paying member, you ain't getting any games. I'm sure they have couched this rule as to avoid Michigan's new "Right to work" law. Either that or its a case of OBB (over-beaurocrating beaurocrats).

In Texas, we're in the middle of a battle over control of officiating between our state and union. The state's no registration/no games edict has been on hold for years now awaiting a court battle that is probably eating away at our union's coffers. Probably will be a case of whoever has the deeper pockets wins.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by bluehair

The state's no registration/no games edict has been on hold for years now awaiting a court battle that is probably eating away at our union's coffers. Probably will be a case of whoever has the deeper pockets wins.

I'm betting on the state, in that case.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

I'm betting on the state, in that case.

Well ... as my other post said, it's not a union... but technically it's also not the state. It's the UIL --- a technicality perhaps, but their pockets are infinite.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

This sounds like union/state bullying to me. If you ain't a dues paying member, you ain't getting any games. I'm sure they have couched this rule as to avoid Michigan's new "Right to work" law. Either that or its a case of OBB (over-beaurocrating beaurocrats).

In Texas, we're in the middle of a battle over control of officiating between our state and union. The state's no registration/no games edict has been on hold for years now awaiting a court battle that is probably eating away at our union's coffers. Probably will be a case of whoever has the deeper pockets wins.

I think it had more to do with Background checks and clinics. I was not a member of a union and never would join one. I do not want my salary determined by the competence of my laziest co-worker.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

This sounds like union/state bullying to me. If you ain't a dues paying member, you ain't getting any games. I'm sure they have couched this rule as to avoid Michigan's new "Right to work" law. Either that or its a case of OBB (over-beaurocrating beaurocrats).

In Texas, we're in the middle of a battle over control of officiating between our state and union. The state's no registration/no games edict has been on hold for years now awaiting a court battle that is probably eating away at our union's coffers. Probably will be a case of whoever has the deeper pockets wins.

I have to disagree with that. Most states require those to work and their public high schools and private high schools to have a license or a minimum requirement to work games. The situation in Texas is unique and not applicable to most states. I live in a large population state and you could not work a game with any IHSA member school if you do not have a license. And it has nothing to do with unions or "right to work" issues. They just require you to be qualified by passing a series of steps to work those games and to be around kids. It think that is only fair and just in this very litigious society. After all most of these are non-for-profit private organizations, not public organizations that have to allow someone or anyone to work in that group without some standards being set. And I doubt seriously this would be a legal battle that they would lose as most things require some minimal standard to participate when a license is at play.

Peace

[qcumpire]

I would never knowingly work with someone who is not licensed by the IHSA. One worry I would have is whether or not my supplemental medical and liability insurance would be voided by working with someone who is not licensed.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by qcumpire

i would never knowingly work with someone who is not licensed by the ihsa. One worry i would have is whether or not my supplemental medical and liability insurance would be voided by working with someone who is not licensed.

++1!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by qcumpire

I would never knowingly work with someone who is not licensed by the IHSA. One worry I would have is whether or not my supplemental medical and liability insurance would be voided by working with someone who is not licensed.

It wouldn't. After all you are not responsible for who you work with as Michigan states.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

This sounds like union/state bullying to me. If you ain't a dues paying member, you ain't getting any games. I'm sure they have couched this rule as to avoid Michigan's new "Right to work" law. Either that or its a case of OBB (over-beaurocrating beaurocrats).

In Texas, we're in the middle of a battle over control of officiating between our state and union. The state's no registration/no games edict has been on hold for years now awaiting a court battle that is probably eating away at our union's coffers. Probably will be a case of whoever has the deeper pockets wins.

It's not a union. Don't call it a union, even in your thoughts. If they unionize, it would change a crapload of things ... it's an association.

In any case - union/state bullying? Nonsense. Requiring the official to have passed tests and received training? Absolutely.

[jwwashburn]

State Union for HS Baseball officials would mean no one under the age of 40 would be allowed to watch a playoff game..much less work one

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bluehair

This sounds like union/state bullying to me. If you ain't a dues paying member, you ain't getting any games. I'm sure they have couched this rule as to avoid Michigan's new "Right to work" law. Either that or its a case of OBB (over-beaurocrating beaurocrats).

In Texas, we're in the middle of a battle over control of officiating between our state and union. The state's no registration/no games edict has been on hold for years now awaiting a court battle that is probably eating away at our union's coffers. Probably will be a case of whoever has the deeper pockets wins.

There is no umpire "union". The UIL wants to charge officials a fee themselves. A whole whopping $50.00. The case has been take pro bono, most likely by lawyers that officiate in Texas. It has been tied up wherever for about five years. You should pay better attention at your"association" meetings, where you pay dues to be a member of the "association" that assigns you your UIL high school games.

Personally, I would be more suspicious of how an association spend it's dues since I've never seen our accounting system, a financial statement, or where the monies paid out go to or where.

Longtime union branch treasurer, and state treasurer.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

There is no umpire "union". The UIL wants to charge officials a fee themselves. A whole whopping $50.00. The case has been take pro bono, most likely by lawyers that officiate in Texas. It has been tied up wherever for about five years. You should pay better attention at your"association" meetings, where you pay dues to be a member of the "association" that assigns you your UIL high school games.

Personally, I would be more suspicious of how an association spend it's dues since I've never seen our accounting system, a financial statement, or where the monies paid out go to or where.

Longtime union branch treasurer, and state treasurer.

Odd. Two different associations I've been with have a (horribly boring) reading of the accounting crap twice a year and hand out all the relevant data.

[lawump]

Random thoughts on this thread:

As to the OP: Bruce Froemming said on the first day of umpire school one year, "you haven't learned to umpire, until you can umpire drunk!" Obviously, the umpire in the news story in the OP flunked Froemming's school.

I don't know the make-up of the UIL (what percentage of the schools are public and what percentage are private), but looking briefly at the UIL's website, I am going to guess that the SCOTUS' ruling in Brentwood Academy takes the "technicality" out of it...the UIL is assuredly "the state". (I am not weighing in on the merits of any legal disputes raised in this thread, other than to say that the UIL is a "state actor" as that legal term is defined.)

In South Carolina, if two teams play a game using non-certified umpires, then they have actually had an illegal scrimmage. Both teams will likely forfeit their entire season (and that's not my guess...that's what the assistant commissioner for baseball has publicly said.) Schools are told that on the varsity level, they are NOT to play unless they have two SCHSL-certified umpires.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by lawump

I don't know the make-up of the UIL (what percentage of the schools are public and what percentage are private), but looking briefly at the UIL's website, I am going to guess that the SCOTUS' ruling in Brentwood Academy takes the "technicality" out of it...the UIL is assuredly "the state". (I am not weighing in on the merits of any legal disputes raised in this thread, other than to say that the UIL is a "state actor" as that legal term is defined.)

I'll bet UIL wants to be considered the "state". If they are "the state", they win. It used to be that you couldn't tell if TASO was "the "state" (they were the "state" authority over officiating) or "a member Asso" (can't use the word "union"-some people bristle). I think UIL wants to be "the state", complete the wrestling away of any remaing TASO "state" authority over officiating and relegate TASO to "a member Asso" only (which they probably can't survive being). IMO, the TASO law suit is their last ditch attempt to regain some "state" status...can't be done.

[NavyChiefBlue]

UIL v TASO lawsuit is quickly coming to an end. A Representative in the Texas House sponsored HB 1775. It passed the House and the Senate, it now awaits the Governor 's signature. From my understanding, the sides came together once this bill was introduced. We will see how it all pans out, as there are other issues on the table, but here is what the bill says, in laymans terms.

- The bill would prohibit the University Interscholastic League (UIL) from registering, charging fees, or requiring membership in any sponsoring organization of sports officials as a precondition to contract with a school district or open-enrollment charter school.
- The bill would prohibit the UIL from sponsoring or organizing any organization of sports officials or influencing the selection of sports officials by school districts or open-enrollment charter schools.
- The bill would allow the UIL to set the rates or fee schedules payable by school districts or open-enrollment charter schools to sports officials.

Maybe we will finally get that pay raise we were expecting a few years ago.