Ma officials??

[mick]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

Something I very, very, very much doubt.

So from how you describe it, it almost sounds voluntary. What happens if the contributions don't add up to the lawyer's actual charged fee? Who makes up the difference? Or is the lawyer more or less doing this as some kind of favor, and will just accept anything that the officials think is fair? Sorry for the questions, but my board has mentioned nothing at all about paying this lawyer, or the possibility of dividing the fee amongst the membership.

More to the point, if we are successful with arguing this issue before the judge, what if the MIAA decides to appeal the ruling? That's gotta mean more time, money, and expenses for our lawyer. Glad the individual board's state representatives thought this through and decided to check with their membership before moving forward.

Don't mean to sound sarcastic, and I'm not complaining about spending 5 bucks or whatever, just upset about this in principle. Another reason this whole thing stinks going on 1 and a half years now with no resolution in sight.

Miichigan High School Athletic Association recently used some sort of Legal Insurance to contest a court question.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

What happens if the contributions don't add up to the lawyer's actual charged fee? Who makes up the difference?

My guess is the state board will have to pay the difference. Of course, the state board's only income is from the local boards. So, each board might have to pay some sort of assessment fee or something to cover the costs.

Glad the individual board's state representatives thought this through and decided to check with their membership before moving forward.

Your individual board's "state reps" are your elected president, as well as your elected vice president or secretary. You voted for those folks and they represent you on the state board. Perhaps they should have given your local membership more info, or maybe your executive committee simply voted to pay the $5/member out of discretionary funds.

Another reason this whole thing stinks going on 1 and a half years now with no resolution in sight.

I agree that it's gone on too long. That is partly the fault of the state board, to be sure. But I think a resolution is now in sight, for better or for worse. Certainly by the tournament, we'll know 100% what the court's final decision is (even if there is an appeal, which I am hopeful will not happen).

[Jburt]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

Something I very, very, very much doubt.

So from how you describe it, it almost sounds voluntary. What happens if the contributions don't add up to the lawyer's actual charged fee? Who makes up the difference? Or is the lawyer more or less doing this as some kind of favor, and will just accept anything that the officials think is fair? Sorry for the questions, but my board has mentioned nothing at all about paying this lawyer, or the possibility of dividing the fee amongst the membership.

More to the point, if we are successful with arguing this issue before the judge, what if the MIAA decides to appeal the ruling? That's gotta mean more time, money, and expenses for our lawyer. Glad the individual board's state representatives thought this through and decided to check with their membership before moving forward.

Don't mean to sound sarcastic, and I'm not complaining about spending 5 bucks or whatever, just upset about this in principle. Another reason this whole thing stinks going on 1 and a half years now with no resolution in sight.

my understanding is that if EVERY official agrees it will be on the order of $5. If every official doesn't agree then the fee will be divided amongst the officials who agree to pay a fee. I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE if this is/will be the case. but it is something that I have heard. it doesn't really seem fair that only some officials would pay the fees for others who elect not to and the result would benefit everybody.
I also believe the lawyer is a mass IAABO member.
And there needs to be some resolution soon.

[BayStateRef]

At our interpretation meeting last month, the board secretary had the "I can't stay for the handshake" forms. I asked for 20 -- one for each varsity game on my schedule. He thought I was joking. I was not.

I discussed this issue with one of my assignors. He said he did not care what we did...only that the crew did the same thing. If one guy was not going to stay, no one is to stay.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I discussed this issue with one of my assignors. He said he did not care what we did...only that the crew did the same thing. If one guy was not going to stay, no one is to stay.

This is what I'm afraid is going to happen if the pghs has to stay. Let's say we have a varsity game with veteran official with 30+ years experience paired with a younger official (maybe 8-9 years total exp; 3-4 years varsity exp). Younger official is steadily improving, and moving up, looking to possibly snag his first post-season tourney game at the end of the season. Veteran official is dead set against sticking aroung for pghs and does not stay at the end of the game. What does the younger official do? If he stays, he looks bad in the eyes of his fellow officials. If he leaves, he can kiss post-season assignments bye-bye (for this year and probably for a few years to come...if not longer).

We can only hope the judge rules in our favor...otherwise it's going to get a lot uglier before it gets better...

[BayStateRef]

From the Boston Herald:

The Mass. State Board of Officials (MSBOA) is seeking an injunction to the requirement that its members stay on the court to observe the postgame handshake following a high school basketball game. The MIAA was served with papers this weekend ordering it to appear in Worcester Superior Court on Thursday morning to address the issue.
“It’s a safety concern,” said Bob Grady, the president of MSBOA. “Our own rule book tells us not to stay on the court after the game. We’re not trying to be the bad guys here.”

[Jburt]

MIAA wins case:

The MIAA earned what it believes was a major court victory yesterday when Judge Christine M. Roach of the Worcester Superior Court refused to grant an injunction to the Mass. State Board of Officials Association.

As a result, at the conclusion of all MIAA basketball games, the referees will be required to remain at courtside to observe the postgame handshake ceremony

[David M]

This is not what I wanted to hear. I have my first varsity game of the year tonight in a gym where everyone must walk through a metal detector.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by David M

This is not what I wanted to hear. I have my first varsity game of the year tonight in a gym where everyone must walk through a metal detector.

Well if you look on the bright side, at least you probably don't have to worry about fans with guns or knives...

Does Massachusetts have a law that specifies penalties for assaulting a sports official? If so, I think the first time one of you folks out there get assaulted post-game while observing the handshake, ought to file a criminal complaint not only against the the person who assaulted you but against the top gun in the MIAA and the judge who ruled against you folks. That would be payback because THEY put you in that position. I would look to what the judge said, regarding that the plaintiffs did not prove their physical well-being would be jeopardized. That's negligence on her part.

[David M]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

Well if you look on the bright side, at least you probably don't have to worry about fans with guns or knives...

Thanks, I needed a bit of laugh.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by David M

This is not what I wanted to hear. I have my first varsity game of the year tonight in a gym where everyone must walk through a metal detector.

This, in and of itself, is reason enough to leave the court and fill out the paperwork, instead of staying for the handshake.