Earrings & Liability

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am talking about how easy it is to miss something like an earring. Unless you have a clear look at something, you might miss it and you can be looking for something.

I had an African American young man on the baseball team I coached last spring who wore a small, black, pearl-type earing. Man, was that sucker hard to spot even up close in the dugout. He knows that when he steps onto my court though I'm gonna take a real good look.

Unfortunately, he's young and doesn't look at it in the safety sense. He treats it like a game to see if he can get away with it. But, as JRut states, this one could be easily missed.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Tim C

In the upcoming November issue of "High School Today" there is a legal column written by Lee Green (Baker University Professor of Law) that covers this issue.

There is no such thing as a waiver of liability concerning high school rules. In any sport, at any level, if NFHS Rules are used there can be no waiver. It is not legal to do so.

The attempt at a waiver places the official in the position of responsibility.

Do not accept this practice.

Regards,

This is also true in Canada, but in football. I'm sure other sports have the same ruling from the law's POV.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yep, you're missing something...stopped clock here for summer league. I'm sure we're not the only place that does stopped clock for summer. We do straight-up rules except for no count of personal fouls and an shortened halftime.

I have only worked one tournament that had a stop clock and that was an AAU Tournament. There were also coaches all over the country watching as well. It is common that most games are running clock.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From Billymac: "You're right. If we look for these infractions, we're doing our job, even if we miss something. If we don't look for these infractions, we're not doing our job."

JRutledge: What part of "You're right" didn't you understand.

I'm sure that we've all observed officials who are wasting their 15 minutes before a game doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, and not doing things they're supposed to be doing. We may miss some infractions due to hair, warmups, etc. but we at least have to make an attempt to look.

I often have a problem noticing metal hair clips during warmups, but when I see them in the game, they can't play with them in their hair.

I think you are missing the main point I am making. I spend a lot of my time looking for these infractions and I miss them often because the beads are the same color as the hair, or the hair is covering up the ears. Or better yet the ears are small and the earring is so small and does not sparkle, you do not see them. It is not always about wasting time and not looking for things. But when players have warm-ups covering their entire uniform, you do not see all the possible infractions. And as someone said when you work games where African-Americans are involved and the beads are the same color as the hair or the hair pin is the same color (or similar color) as the hair, even looking really hard you can miss something. I am sure this is the case for other people, but I know it is common to have African-American males wear corn roll styles of hair and often they put beads on the bottom of their hair.

Peace

[ref18]

If they wanted to let the player play with earrings that badly, then they'd have to go through the trouble to find new refs. At least if I was there.

I actually had an incident with a soccer league I supervise, earrings were allowed, and not knowing anything about soccer, I didn't make an issue of it. However last week, an earring got caught in the mesh of a soccer net, and was subsequently ripped out of the ear. Definitely not a pretty sight.

Long story short, we now have a zero tolerance policy against jewelry in ALL intramural sports I supervise.

If it's in the rules, and you willfully let them participate, you are liable. It's basic negligence, and you will get your *** handed to you. And I think being negligent to this degree might put into question whether or not your insurance will cover the incident.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref18

I actually had an incident with a soccer league I supervise, earrings were allowed, and not knowing anything about soccer, I didn't make an issue of it. However last week, an earring got caught in the mesh of a soccer net, and was subsequently ripped out of the ear. Definitely not a pretty sight.

I can't tell you how many times the girls around here get their ears stuck in the basketball nets.

Okay, seriously, this is a good example. Earrings could just as easily get caught in another player's jersey or hair as they could in a net.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't know. He says we shouldn't say, "You have to take them off to play."

Yeah, I didn't notice the "to play" part. I was thinking he didn't want to order her to remove them. But saying, "You have to take them off if you want to play" seems perfectly reasonable.

[fullor30]

Had 'just summer ball' varsity girls tournament a few weeks ago with all the aforementioned cliches "the other refs said it's ok" "C'mon, just summer ball"

Favorite is "I can't take them out, I just got them in" I politely say I'm not telling you to remove them but you can't play with them in. Coach then echoes players story. Game starts with girl on bench, a quarter later, guess what? the earrings that couldn't be removed are out. I told her at half she moved much quicker without them. At least I got a smile.

I have no problem enforcing this rule.