Incredble display of OOO idiocy - Page 2

Jurassic Referee · #16 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 29, 2005, 07:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by M&M Guy
As much as it pains me to side with a Yankee fan, I have to agree with Dan. Knowing the rule is important, but knowing why the rule exists is just as important. Obviously the rule is intended for the safety of the player and their toes. But if they don't have toes to protect, what is the purpose of the shoes? Here's a question for those rule-savvy officials: if the player ties the shoes around his belt, then would the shoes be considered jewlery?

Common sense should prevail. I would bet the previous games' officials did notice, and had used common sense. Yes, I think the coaching staff and parents should've also followed through, but it still falls on the officials on this one.

um... but if this kid had artificial legs, then those legs would have to be approved by the state association and an authorization statement would have to be available to the referee.

Why couldn't the same procedure have been followed in this case?

The game officials obviously had some liability concerns. They also really didn't have anything available to alleviate those concerns. So.....are you talking about an OOO here or are you talking about an official with some legitimate liability concerns? Big difference imo.

Oh, I have no problem with liability issues, when they exist. If there were artificial limbs involved - the officials should absolutely be concerned. If a kid from Nigeria comes in and has kicked all life barefoot, and somehow wearing shoes might be against his religion - sorry. The rules say you must wear shoes, unless you have that waiver.

But, did you read the story? Did you see his picture? The point is there is no place to put the shoes. Therefore, what is the liability involved? Actually, I can see the reverse happening - the officials are sued under the Disabilities Act for discrimination. They didn't let him play solely on the basis he couldn't wear shoes and kneepads. Not that there were any feet or knees to protect. You don't have any feet to put the shoes on? Sorry, you just can't play. That's discrimination, and that is also an issue.

I know in this litigious society you can be sued at any time for just about anything. And we as officials need to err on the side of caution every chance we get. And of course the parents and coaches should've had their ducks in a row before this. But this seems to just scream for common sense. And apparently the officials prior to this game had that common sense.

This is pretty much in line with my thnking when I read JR's question to you (to borrow a phrase from MTD thanks for doing yeomans work and may the spirit of J Dallas Shirley smile kindly on you and yours blah blah blah...).

But of course he didn't ask me because he knows I would have just told him to shut up.

Shut up.

Dan_ref · #17 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 29, 2005, 07:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by M&M Guy
As much as it pains me to side with a Yankee fan, I have to agree with Dan. Knowing the rule is important, but knowing why the rule exists is just as important. Obviously the rule is intended for the safety of the player and their toes. But if they don't have toes to protect, what is the purpose of the shoes? Here's a question for those rule-savvy officials: if the player ties the shoes around his belt, then would the shoes be considered jewlery?

Common sense should prevail. I would bet the previous games' officials did notice, and had used common sense. Yes, I think the coaching staff and parents should've also followed through, but it still falls on the officials on this one.

um... but if this kid had artificial legs, then those legs would have to be approved by the state association and an authorization statement would have to be available to the referee.

Why couldn't the same procedure have been followed in this case?

The game officials obviously had some liability concerns. They also really didn't have anything available to alleviate those concerns. So.....are you talking about an OOO here or are you talking about an official with some legitimate liability concerns? Big difference imo.

Oh, I have no problem with liability issues, when they exist. If there were artificial limbs involved - the officials should absolutely be concerned. If a kid from Nigeria comes in and has kicked all life barefoot, and somehow wearing shoes might be against his religion - sorry. The rules say you must wear shoes, unless you have that waiver.

But, did you read the story? Did you see his picture? The point is there is no place to put the shoes. Therefore, what is the liability involved? Actually, I can see the reverse happening - the officials are sued under the Disabilities Act for discrimination. They didn't let him play solely on the basis he couldn't wear shoes and kneepads. Not that there were any feet or knees to protect. You don't have any feet to put the shoes on? Sorry, you just can't play. That's discrimination, and that is also an issue.

I know in this litigious society you can be sued at any time for just about anything. And we as officials need to err on the side of caution every chance we get. And of course the parents and coaches should've had their ducks in a row before this. But this seems to just scream for common sense. And apparently the officials prior to this game had that common sense.

This is pretty much in line with my thnking when I read JR's question to you (to borrow a phrase from MTD thanks for doing yeomans work and may the spirit of J Dallas Shirley smile kindly on you and yours blah blah blah...).

But of course he didn't ask me because he knows I would have just told him to shut up.

Shut up.

Got the game on?

I kinda felt bad for that Bedard kid...for about a second...

WhistlesAndStripes · #18 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 29, 2005, 07:39pm

There's a full discussion of this thing on the Football side of the board.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/22247

Edited to add the link.

[Edited by Whistles & Stripes on Sep 29th, 2005 at 08:58 PM]

Jurassic Referee · #19 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 29, 2005, 08:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Got the game on?

I kinda felt bad for that Bedard kid...for about a second... [/B][/QUOTE]Got a few games on. Boston..Cleveland..the Good Guys. Got smoke coming outa the changer.

If all the scores hold up, we might have to put Chuckie on a suicide watch. He might try jumping off a kitchen chair or sumthin'.

Dan_ref · #20 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 29, 2005, 08:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Got the game on?

I kinda felt bad for that Bedard kid...for about a second... [/B]

Got a few games on. Boston..Cleveland..the Good Guys. Got smoke coming outa the changer. [/b][/quote] Must remind Mrs. JR of the good old days to see smoke coming out of your lap again.

Quote:

If all the scores hold up, we might have to put Chuckie on a suicide watch. He might try jumping off a kitchen chair or sumthin'.

Who's gonna help him get up there?

(uh-oh...the Japanese guy just launched one... 8-0)

M&M Guy · #21 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 29, 2005, 08:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes
There's a full discussion of this thing on the Football side of the board.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/22247

Edited to add the link.

[Edited by Whistles & Stripes on Sep 29th, 2005 at 08:58 PM]

Thanks for the link. A couple of those guys over there sounded pretty smart...

ChuckElias · #22 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 30, 2005, 06:37am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
If all the scores hold up, we might have to put Chuckie on a suicide watch. He might try jumping off a kitchen chair or sumthin'.

Who's gonna help him get up there? [/B][/QUOTE]
Just didn't want anybody to worry about me. I used the emergency rope ladder to get down after the 8th and was resting comfortably on the couch when Ortiz went the opposite way against the shift.

JRutledge · #23 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 30, 2005, 07:23am

As basketball officials this might be hard to understand. As a football officials there are many issues we have to deal with that are not "spelled out" but could cause potential liability issues. These issues usually are never an issue in basketball, but everything to what is on the helmet to what type of cleats are worn can open the officials up for liability if certain things are not addressed. I am not saying that I agree with the officialÂ’s decision, but I understand the thought process that they were dealing with. The biggest issue we have to deal with as basketball officials is if the players have those "Life Strong" bracelets. It is easy as basketball officials to say this was overly officious, but until you have worked football and every game you are confronted with some form of equipment that might be suspect or illegal, it is really hard to judge standing on a computer screen. If this kid got hurt for any reason, then the parents would have sued everyone for allowing this kid to get hurt. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Peace

mcrowder · #24 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 30, 2005, 07:45am

I'm positive that the motivation for looking this up in the locker room was that they felt the kid was in danger. I SERIOUSLY doubt that their reasons were malicious, as seems implied here. And quite frankly, I'm shocked that the school itself didn't anticipate this potential problem (or perhaps even feel the need to protect THEMSELVES from litigation) and get the waiver before this kid played his first game at ANY level.

The boy is a tribute to what can be overcome by the human spirit. But I'll be honest - if I see this kid on the field for the first time, it would not have taken me until halftime to ask the coach if he was cleared to play. In football, a kid running around on his hands surely seems to be in a precarious position amongst 250 pound goliaths in cleats.

ChuckElias · #25 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 30, 2005, 08:32am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
These issues usually are never an issue in basketball,

I couldn't agree more or less. Didn't want anyone to think that Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy was slacking off.

JugglingReferee · #26 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 30, 2005, 08:37pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mick
Out of the area officials.
New/young crew.
Half-time discussion with Rule Book.
"Easy peasy. Japanesey." - Brooks Hatlin

Brooks Hatlin was a great guy. Thanks for the reminder.

JugglingReferee · #27 (**permalink**) Fri Sep 30, 2005, 08:43pm

1. The officials that disallowed the player for the second half were put in a tough position.

2. There should have been paperwork at the game, signed by the league or the officaiting body.

3. Why didn't the officials that allowed the player to play alert the sitch to the PTB to spread the word that such a sitch exists? I think a bit of seeing the big picture by these officials could have been preventative officiating.

4. It is nobody's fualt. Unfortunately, these types of things happen in life and although the player was at the centre of it all, I hope he realizes it is nothing personal against him, and also realize that many many people will be educated because of his missing 24 minutes of football.

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Sep 30th, 2005 at 09:46 PM]

SMEngmann · #28 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 01, 2005, 02:13am

Personally, I think the SI article by Rick Reilly villifying the officials is gratuitous at best. It criticizes the officials for taking a "black and white" look at the rulebook, while Reilly paints the officials in black and white terms without looking at the multitude of safety and liability issues (if he gets hurt, or happens to hurt someone else). There's no doubt in my mind that the goal of the officials was not to prevent an inspirational player from playing, but out of concerns for safety, for they must've forseen the maelstrom of criticism they'd receive for doing so. This crew had the guts to address an issue that other crews obviously didn't.

Reilly also manipulates the facts of the situation, painting the officials as hiding behind, "A rule is a rule," although he never interviewed them (for obvious reasons), and that the crew chief was doing what he was supposed to and simply providing the reference to the rule. The coach and player should have been more prepared and Reilly should be ashamed of bonehead comments like, "Everything was back to normal again last week, Bobby Martin was back playing without shoes and official Dennis Daly and his crew were back reffing, without brains." Reilly should put on a striped shirt one time and try it before leveling pius criticims.

jeffpea · #29 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 02, 2005, 09:05am

I, too, read Rick Reilly's article about this regrettable situation and could not agree more with the viewpoint of the piece. While I wouldn't say that a fellow official was "officiating without a brain", I certainly agree that the referee's judgement has to be seriously questioned. Officiating is entirely about applying the rules of the game in a fair and consistent manner. It requires the combination of rules knowledge AND judgement. While the situation could have had a different outcome if others (coaches, school admins., conf/state leaders, etc.) had acted differently, it is disingenuous at best to shift the blame away from the game officials. The lack of common sense judgement displayed was alarming.

The cynical side of me wonders whether that official works for FEMA - "I'm sorry Mr. Hurricane Katrina Survivor, but I cannot give you water because you do not have the correct paperwork. That's our policy/procedure and I have to follow what the manual says - no exceptions".......

I know that's a little over the top, but I'm still shaking my head wondering what that official could possibly be thinking.

JRutledge · #30 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 02, 2005, 05:38pm

Once again I understand why the many basketball officials feel the way they do. The problem is that there are many more safety rules with equipment in football. What players are allowed to wear or not allowed to wear can have heavy consequences. It is easy for basketball officials to think the officials used a black and white interpretation on this play, but the problem is the rules of football when it comes to safety are much more black and white. The rules do not allow us to make decisions based on if a kid or coach is an inspiration to us all. If this kid gets hurt the officials would be one of the first to have to defend their actions. The state association and school should have done everything to make sure there would be no problem. At the very least the school should have made sure that no one could make up their own interpretation. The rules are pretty clear in football. All players have to have certain equipment to play football.

Jeff, this is not much different than the girl that was Muslim that wanted to play basketball with long sweats and a headdress. This is clearly a violation of all of our rules, but the IHSA told everyone across the state to allow it and why. The Ohio organization should have done the same.

Peace