A Hypervigilant or Safety Conscious Ref?

[BoomerSooner]

There may be variation between rule sets, but under FED rules, if you felt "wearing" the mouth guard in this manner "is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate", you should not allow any team member to "wear" the equipment (3-5-1). Rule 3-7 also allows you to not permit any player to participate if in your judgement any item constitutes as safety concern.

If safety was your concern, then your action is supported by rule. With that in mind, I qualified my statement for 2 reasons. The first is that I detected a sense of distaste for "pseudo-Steph" in your description of the situation. The second reason is that you don't mention safety until the end of the post, which suggested to me that you are using that as a reason to justify the action you took.

I'm just trying to provide honest feedback, so if I'm off base with this, I apologize, but my honest interpretation of the situation as I read it was that you didn't care for his cockiness or some other aspect of his play and that was the reason you pressed the issue. If that is the case, then I would make the case that the rules don't support your initial request for him to "wear" the mouth guard properly. The technical foul could be supported on the basis of the players failure to follow the instruction of an official, although the debate on this point is that the rule does instruct the official to not allow a player to participate with equipment that is dangerous, and thus the proper action would could be to require the player to leave the game until his equipment conforms to the rules.

And in conclusion, since you ask how we would have handled the situation, I'll let you know that I would have required the player to put the mouth guard in properly explaining to him that it presents a potential choking hazard when not used properly and made sure his coach was aware of the situation. The benefit of not working Adult/Wreck games is that HS coaches will typically take care of the issue because they don't want to deal with the headache of it coming up again later in the game. If I did subsequently notice it again, I would stop play and notify his coach that the player has to be removed from the game until the equipment situation was corrected.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

There may be variation between rule sets, but under FED rules, if you felt "wearing" the mouth guard in this manner "is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate", you should not allow any team member to "wear" the equipment (3-5-1). Rule 3-7 also allows you to not permit any player to participate if in your judgement any item constitutes as safety concern.

If safety was your concern, then your action is supported by rule. With that in mind, I qualified my statement for 2 reasons. The first is that I detected a sense of distaste for "pseudo-Steph" in your description of the situation. The second reason is that you don't mention safety until the end of the post, which suggested to me that you are using that as a reason to justify the action you took.

*good insight as I had not self-reflected on how "bias" may have influenced though not necessarily benn the catalyst for my action. At the core of my rationale for said action was my upholding the "respect"/"dignity"/"politeness etiquette' of the 'game'. That this was conjoined to the hygeine of players was incidental--though ostensibly even more significant.


I'm just trying to provide honest feedback, so if I'm off base with this, I apologize, but my honest interpretation of the situation as I read it was that you didn't care for his cockiness or some other aspect of his play and that was the reason you pressed the issue. If that is the case, then I would make the case that the rules don't support your initial request for him to "wear" the mouth guard properly. The technical foul could be supported on the basis of the players failure to follow the instruction of an official, although the debate on this point is that the rule does instruct the official to not allow a player to participate with equipment that is dangerous, and thus the proper action would could be to require the player to leave the game until his equipment conforms to the rules.

*Ok I see your point here and it does provde me with a proper defense for my action.

And in conclusion, since you ask how we would have handled the situation, I'll let you know that I would have required the player to put the mouth guard in properly explaining to him that it presents a potential choking hazard when not used properly and made sure his coach was aware of the situation. The benefit of not working Adult/Wreck games is that HS coaches will typically take care of the issue because they don't want to deal with the headache of it coming up again later in the game. If I did subsequently notice it again, I would stop play and notify his coach that the player has to be removed from the game until the equipment situation was corrected.

* Unfortunately there is no Coach in men wreck league games---as responisble officials in such scenarios we must by virtue interact more "directly" with the players in resolving issues as there is no "intermediary viz coach'.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

*OK, BNR interesting solution.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.