Earrings & Liability

[26 Year Gap]

Just stick to your guns. More often than not it has been AAU and freshly pierced ears in my experience. I basically advise the coach that to play they need to remove them. And the protest about having to keep them in so the holes don't close are met by the standard "If the holes close up in an hour she should get her money back." Most of the time there is no argument but one girl in a VG game last year sat on the bench the whole game rather than take them out and play.

The tournament director should direct the tournament and if he or she wants quality officials deferring to the officials in these matters is needed. Most problems of this nature in the regular season stem from laxity in games that 'were not as important' when in fact they could and should be a training ground for players, coaches and officials alike.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I basically advise the coach that to play they need to remove them.

I would never tell a player that they had to take off earrings to play. I would tell them that they can't play with earrings.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would never tell a player that they had to take off earrings to play. I would tell them that they can't play with earrings.

I've seen you say this before, Billy. How is this more than semantics?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've seen you say this before, Billy. How is this more than semantics?

In one case, you're giving the player a command: "Take off the earrings".

In the other case, you're giving the player a condition: "If you wish to play in the game, you may not wear the earrings."

In a practical sense, I don't know if it makes much difference.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In one case, you're giving the player a command: "Take off the earrings".

In the other case, you're giving the player a condition: "If you wish to play in the game, you may not wear the earrings."

In a practical sense, I don't know if it makes much difference.

I don't know. He says we shouldn't say, "You have to take them off to play." Instead we should say, "You can't play with them on." Both sentences give them options.

I can see not stopping with, "Take of the earrings." It doesn't give the players the option, but the other two are essentially the same.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In one case, you're giving the player a command: "Take off the earrings".

You are?

The way that I read it....in both cases you're telling the player that they can't play unless they remove the earrings. In neither case are you actually telling the player that they have to remove the earrings.

[jearef]

I've been waiting for someone here to admit he is an attorney and provide an answer to this question. Since none of my brethren in the bar have stepped up, I'll give it a shot.

First, to the argument that "they changed the timing and foul rules, why can't they change this one?". Answer: Timing and fouls have nothing to do with player safety.

Second, to the question of waivers. The OP indicated he got a "waiver" from the TD. Waiver of what? The TD certainly can't waive the player's right to file a negligence suit. The only thing the TD could give you would be an indemnity/hold harmless agreement, (TD agrees to pay you if you have to pay the player or anyone else because of earrings) which would be essentially worthless unless the TD is independently wealthy, or unless he/she has liability insurance that specifically covers such agreements, which isn't likely. Waiver from the player is worthless as well, because she probably isn't old enough to enter into a legally binding contract. Waiver from her parents might be sufficient, but only if they are fully informed as to the risks involved, etc. Also, waiver from her parents won't help if someone else is injured because you choose to overlook the rule. Think that is far-fetched? The girl's earring catches in another girl's jersey; as the earring rips through the earlobe, a bloody hunk of ear lands on other player's face, causing her to faint and strike her head on the floor. Severe concussion/skull fracture results. And you are in DEEP crap.

Here is my cross-examination of the offending official:

Me: Mr. Official, you are aware of the NFHS rule which prohibits the wearing of jewelry, are you not?

You: Yes, sir.

Me: And you would agree with me that earrings are jewelry, and are thus expressly prohibited by rule?

You: Yes, sir.

Me: And you would also agree with me that the rules specifically provide that they are intended "to provide reasonable safety and protection"?

You: Yes, sir.

Me: And you would agree that, according to this language right here in the rulebook. . . .You know what, why don't you read this highlighted language to the jury for me?

You: "It is the policy of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee that there be no deviation from the rules unless experimental approval has been granted by the NFHS liaison to the rules committee."

Me: No deviation, that's what it says?

You: Yes, sir.

Me: But you and your partners decided to deviate in this case.

You: No, the TD made that decision.

Me: Does the TD have the authority to overrule you on a traveling call? Or a foul call?

You: No.

Me: Then why in the world would you allow her to overrule you on a safety issue? Who is charged with the responsibility to enforce the rules?

I could go on, but the point is clear. Never, ever, under any circumstances, agree to play a game when a specific, clear violation of a safety rule exists. It just isn't worth the risk. You can never be in trouble for enforcing the rules; ignoring them is another situation entirely.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by jearef

I could go on, but the point is clear. Never, ever, under any circumstances, agree to play a game when a specific, clear violation of a safety rule exists. It just isn't worth the risk. You can never be in trouble for enforcing the rules; ignoring them is another situation entirely.

Nicely done, jearef.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by jearef

I could go on, but the point is clear. Never, ever, under any circumstances, agree to play a game when a specific, clear violation of a safety rule exists. It just isn't worth the risk. You can never be in trouble for enforcing the rules; ignoring them is another situation entirely.

I sent an email to the tournament director today and included your email. I asked her to specifically add "No Jewelry" to the tournament rules for next year. Regardless of her response, I know what I will do when this comes up again. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would never tell a player that they had to take off earrings to play. I would tell them that they can't play with earrings.

"You can't play while wearing earrings."

"You'll have to take your earrings out if you want to play."

There is absolutely no difference in those two statements. You haven't told him/her that have to take their earrings out. you've simply said no earrings, no PT. Nothing wrong with either statement.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

"You can't play while wearing earrings."

"You'll have to take your earrings out if you want to play."

There is absolutely no difference in those two statements. You haven't told him/her that have to take their earrings out. you've simply said no earrings, no PT. Nothing wrong with either statement.

2+3=5
3+2=5

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

"You can't play while wearing earrings". "You'll have to take your earrings out if you want to play". There is absolutely no difference in those two statements. You haven't told him/her that have to take their earrings out. You've simply said no earrings, no PT. Nothing wrong with either statement.

NFHS 3-5-7: Jewelry shall not be worn.

1) The rule doesn't say anything about players removing jewelry, it just says that they can't play with jewelry. Why make the rule, especially one involving safety, more complicated than it really is?

2) If I tell them they have to take earrings off to play, and they're new to this procedure, and somehow hurt themselves, they can't say to their coach, or parent, "He (pointing to me) told me to take them out".

3) Most importantly. This is what we've been taught in my part of the woods, my evaluators know this, and when in Rome, or in my case, my part of the Constitution State ...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judge Joseph Wapner

"Anybody can sue anybody for anything."

If, in theory, an official can be sued for failure to make the child remove the earrings, resulting in injury, doesn't it follow that an injury produced by an excessive amount of contact because the officials were "letting them play" could also result in a lawsuit? Let us continue to follow the rules and do our best to keep the game safe, not for fear of litigation, but because it is our job and the right thing to do. If you're scared, stay home. It is much more likely that you would commit a traffic violation on the way to the game and cause damage in excess of your insurance coverage.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would never tell a player that they had to take off earrings to play. I would tell them that they can't play with earrings.

I see that you took your anal pill today.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I see that you took your anal pill today.

Is that a suppository?