Incredble display of OOO idiocy

[Dan_ref]

...by overly officious rule book jockey officials.

Latest SI has 2 articles about this kid in Ohio born with no legs who plays on a HS football team. Very heart warming, the kid is an example for all of us in overcoming life's difficulties. Except that wasn't why he made SI. He made SI because he was prevented from playing the second half of a game because he wasn't properly suited up: he had no shoes on. Yes folks, you read that right, the boneheads let the kid play the first half and decided during halftime that he was not legally dressed because he didn't wear shoes on his nonexistant feet that were not attached to his nonexistant legs. The kid was crushed, actually went into the locker room & tied a pair of shoes to his belt to legally get back into the game. His AD convinced him it wuld not be dignified to take that approach, according to SI, so he sat out the rest of he game.

Here's a link, btw the coach brought this to the powers that be in Ohio who sent him a letter saying the kid is allowed to participate without wearing shoes on his nonexistant feet that are not attached to his nonexistant legs.

Un. F'ing. Believable.

http://www.local6.com/news/5010326/detail.html

[zebraman]

Pretty dumb. But you'd think that all the HS football officials would have heard about this player during the season and that it would have been common knowledge by this late in the season that he had been cleared to play. Sounds like pretty poor communication somewhere along the line. Are we sure that FEMA wasn't involved somehow?

Z

Originally posted by Dan_ref

...by overly officious rule book jockey officials.

Latest SI has 2 articles about this kid in Ohio born with no legs who plays on a HS football team. Very heart warming, the kid is an example for all of us in overcoming life's difficulties. Except that wasn't why he made SI. He made SI because he was prevented from playing the second half of a game because he wasn't properly suited up: he had no shoes on. Yes folks, you read that right, the boneheads let the kid play the first half and decided during halftime that he was not legally dressed because he didn't wear shoes on his nonexistant feet that were not attached to his nonexistant legs. The kid was crushed, actually went into the locker room & tied a pair of shoes to his belt to legally get back into the game. His AD convinced him it wuld not be dignified to take that approach, according to SI, so he sat out the rest of he game.

Here's a link, btw the coach brought this to the powers that be in Ohio who sent him a letter saying the kid is allowed to participate without wearing shoes on his nonexistant feet that are not attached to his nonexistant legs.

Un. F'ing. Believable.

http://www.local6.com/news/5010326/detail.html

[mick]

The kid's team could have had proper paperwork (waivers, physician's comments) to avoid putting the officials in a tough spot, written words that takes the officials outa the middle. Paux on them!
mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick
The kid's team could have had proper paperwork (waivers, physician's comments) to avoid putting the officials in a tough spot, written words that takes the officials outa the middle. Paux on them!
mick

Do you think it's reasonable for the coaching staff to realize there's a rule that forces legless kids to wear shoes?

And then to petition the state for a waiver?

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Do you think it's reasonable for the coaching staff to realize there's a rule that forces legless kids to wear shoes?

And then to petition the state for a waiver?

Yes, I think it is quite reasonable for his coaching staff {any staff with a legless player] to know the rule and to pave the way for the kid to play.
Then, if the waiver was on the field, the officials don't err.

..."The association planned to send a letter Tuesday to the Dayton school district that reaffirms Martin's eligibility, according to a report."
That dang letter shoulda been in the coach's pocket before the dang game.
mick

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Do you think it's reasonable for the coaching staff to realize there's a rule that forces legless kids to wear shoes?

And then to petition the state for a waiver?

The kid is a senior and has played all his team's previous games this season on special teams, according to the article. I find it remarkable that no opponent, no previous official, nobody commented about it to the team. How could this be the first time anybody noticed?

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

The kid is a senior and has played all his team's previous games this season on special teams, according to the article. I find it remarkable that no opponent, no previous official, nobody commented about it to the team. How could this be the first time anybody noticed?

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

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

So it took one extra-special crew half a game to understand how to deal with this extra-special kid.

But you're saying the coaching staff should have been super-extra-special to prevent the problem caused when the extra-special crew noticed the extra-special kid had no shoes on his legless body.

I aint buyin it Mick, that's just spreading the special sauce too thin IMO.

[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.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

So it took one extra-special crew half a game to understand how to deal with this extra-special kid.

But you're saying the coaching staff should have been super-extra-special to prevent the problem caused when the extra-special crew noticed the extra-special kid had no shoes on his legless body.

I aint buyin it Mick, that's just spreading the special sauce too thin IMO.

Dan,
I didn't say anything about extra-special, or super-extra-special, I think. [Just checked. Nope didn't say that.]
It seems to me that getting the paperwork in line would be rather mundane once the parameters are in place.
mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

Dan,
I didn't say anything about extra-special, or super-extra-special, I think. [Just checked. Nope didn't say that.]
It seems to me that getting the paperwork in line would be rather mundane once the parameters are in place.
mick

Check again, it's what I saw.

My point is this kid played some number of games plus a half plus scrimmages without a problem from any officials. What did the OOO crew think they were proving at this point? Maybe a word with the coach would have been enough? With a follow-up to state through their own organization for clarification?

Wait...I just read M&M's post. Never mind Mick, you're right.

[M&M Guy]

Dan:

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

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.