A Hypervigilant or Safety Conscious Ref?

[BryanV21]

Isn't there a decent chance of the MG falling on the floor, and becoming a bit of an obstacle? Plus, doesn't part of the equipment rule say about properly wearing equipment (in this case the MG)?

[Kansas Ref]

Yes there is BV21, so I do believe that I was justified in my action.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Yes there is BV21, so I do believe that I was justified in my action.

So why did you ask us?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Isn't there a decent chance of the MG falling on the floor, and becoming a bit of an obstacle? Plus, doesn't part of the equipment rule say about properly wearing equipment (in this case the MG)?

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Yes there is BV21, so I do believe that I was justified in my action.

So when he drops it, "accidentally" step on it. Problem solved.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Yes there is BV21, so I do believe that I was justified in my action.

he's probably been allowed to wear it out like that most of the time. him doing it again after you telling him to keep it in is probably not a dig at you as much as it is a habit of his. more like a reflex. if i felt compelled to do something id just send him out of the game--like jewelry etc. A T for a mouth guard doesn't help your game.

[OKREF]

The moral of this story is.....Never, Never, Ever, call a men’s wreck league benefit fundraiser tourney

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BigCat

if i felt compelled to do something id just send him out of the game--like jewelry etc. A T for a mouth guard doesn't help your game.

This.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The moral of this story is.....Never, Never, Ever, call a men’s wreck league benefit fundraiser tourney

*well I did work the game at the request of a referee colleague who needed help; moreover, the $30 per game fee helped to persuade me.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So when he drops it, "accidentally" step on it. Problem solved.

*OK, BNR interesting solution.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

So why did you ask us?

*looking for the pros and cons of my action from knowledgeable, experienced, and intelligent officials--hey I don't exist in a vacuum OK.

[JetMetFan]

Since it's a safety item I'm not going to tell a player "wear it properly or take it out." I'll tell them wear it properly or they can't play (NF 3-7). If they choose to take it out that's on them. If we tell them in any way they have to take it out and they get hurt, that opens us up to legal issues.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Since it's a safety item I'm not going to tell a player "wear it properly or take it out." I'll tell them wear it properly or they can't play (NF 3-7). If they choose to take it out that's on them. If we tell them in any way they have to take it out and they get hurt, that opens us up to legal issues.

*Interesting observation of a possible "legal issue" that could arise here. Our association recently had a speaker from NASO give us a seminar regarding "legal aspects, pitfalls, and implications of officiating". Of the key points she mentioned were: 1) "liable negligence" (example she gave was: B1 gets pushed hard in lower back on rebound and you are in L and do not call a foul--B1 gets back injury and parents are raising a big stink after they saw game video); 2) "un-intentional injury" (example she gave was 'a well-meaning official helping a player with a sprained ankle up off the gym floor and said player slips from your grasp and tears the acl". I can see how the above cited issue of MG could be in-play here, now that you mention 'legal' aspects.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Of the key points she mentioned were: 1) "liable negligence" (example she gave was: B1 gets pushed hard in lower back on rebound and you are in L and do not call a foul--B1 gets back injury and parents are raising a big stink after they saw game video)

I'm interested to hear more about this. Was her conclusion that the official was a.) liable, and/or b.) negligent?!

Whether you call a foul or not, B1 is injured on the play. A non-whistle didn't cause it, and a whistle won't prevent it. The classic "someone's gonna get hurt out there" non-logic.

I know we all agree on this, just wanted to hear what the NASO rep's take was on her own scenario.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Question I have is: was I being hypervigilant?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Question I have is: Was I protecting the safety of other players [and quite possibly also of PS]?

No.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Question I have is: And/or would any of you’all have done a similar officiating action?

Absolutley not.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by ODog

I'm interested to hear more about this. Was her conclusion that the official was a.) liable, and/or b.) negligent?!

Whether you call a foul or not, B1 is injured on the play. A non-whistle didn't cause it, and a whistle won't prevent it. The classic "someone's gonna get hurt out there" non-logic.

I know we all agree on this, just wanted to hear what the NASO rep's take was on her own scenario.

*the seminar speaker cited a case from a HS game in Florida----the player was injured due to push in back that "everyone saw" and the official did not either consider it/call it a foul--they [the parents] all saw game video and blamed the official for not "protecting/penalizing" player. The main take home from this seminar was that it made me seriously consider taking out their 'liability insurance"- that Naso offers.