Earrings & Liability

[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.

[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.

[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.

[irp]

Being honest, I had a little sympathy with the TD in the story up until the point they opened their mouth. They are trying to keep people happy and fair enough. I would ask if they would be happy when the blood starts flowing?

Simple point: earrings in = no play over here. Clear risk to the player, I am not too worried about a law suit (and I am a lawyer) but I am worried about the safety of a player.

England Basketball and FIBA are clear - no jewellery. Easy to enforce, players know the rules and don't even try to break them any more. Even at local scrimage games; they know the ref will say 'take it out if you want to play...'

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by irp

Even at local scrimmage games; they know the referee will say "take it out if you want to play".

"You can't play with earrings"

[Adam]

Billy, please tell me how the two statements differ beyond semantics?

[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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

Remember - the NF does have some exceptions, specifically medical alert and religious. You can find instructions for how these items can be worn. Perhaps she should state something along the lines of "the official High School rule regarding the wearing of jewelry will be strictly enforced." I would add, "Coaches who tell players to ignore this rule will have their kneecaps broken." She could then show a diagram of how medical alert and religious jewelry can be worn and also a diagram of what a broken kneecap looks like. I have one of those if she (k)needs it.

[BayStateRef]

I was polite. What I wanted to tell her is that the officials are the sole arbiters of the rules and she should back them 100 percent. I know of several tournaments and leagues that state the rules that simply -- and do it.

Besides, "Religious and medical alert medals are not considered jewelry." (3-5-7)

[BillyMac]

Players may not participate while wearing jewelry. Religious medals or medical alert medals are not considered jewelry. A religious medal must be taped and worn under the uniform. A medical alert medal must be taped and may be visible. State associations may, on an individual basis, allow a player to participate while wearing a head covering, if it is worn for medical or religious reasons, provided that the covering is not abrasive, hard, or dangerous, and is attached in such a way that it is highly unlikely to come off during play. Written documentation should be available.

[mdray]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I sent an email to the tournament director today.

just wondering....did you mention to your assigner that you were intending to do that? Just thinking how assigners would view that....if there was an issue with a school AD, would it be the right thing for a letter directed to the AD to come from the official involved or from the assigner...jmho, but I'd tell the assigner my concerns and let her/him deal with the TD...then if it wasn't resolved to my satisfaction, I wouldn't be available for that site/tournament anymore