A Hypervigilant or Safety Conscious Ref?

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ODog

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.

And, was there a pattern of similar plays being ignored prior to the play in question where the injury occurred? That is where the liability could come from.

[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.