A Hypervigilant or Safety Conscious Ref?

[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.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... the player was injured due to push in back that "everyone saw" and the official did not either consider it/call it a foul--[the parents] all saw game video and blamed the official for not "protecting/penalizing" player ...

Right, but we knew that part already. Change the scenario to "the official calls a foul." So what. Johnny gets hurt either way.

Did the parents in the Fla. scenario just blame the official (big deal ... happens, usually baselessly, dozens of times a game) or did they actually sue/win in the Fla. scenario?

Sorry, KansasRef, not trying to shoot the messenger. Just intrigued, that's all.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

The main take home from this seminar was that it made me seriously consider taking out their 'liability insurance"- that Naso offers.

Which, of course, was probably at least partially the point of the presentation.