If the U believes that the knee brace is illegal, but the R says it is okay which official makes the decision? :eek:

There are more case law on contracts than official's liablity.
 

You are assuming he is going to disagree with your decision to the point he would allow a player to not follow the rule. If I understood the OP, the R just did not know this was illegal, he did not say let it go. And the R gave the U1 the floor during the captain's meeting to explain the rule and walking off or saying what you have suggested does none of that. If you are worried about liability or being sued, someone might sue you because you did not allow the player to use an illegal device. There is nothing saying someone cannot or will not sue you if that is your major concern. If you are also overruled on applying the rule properly, then that puts you in a much better legal position than someone that just turned the other cheek.

Now if you walk off, you could be held responsible for not complying with a contract. And if you walk off what is to say you cannot be sued for someone getting hurt and you decided to leave over a disagreement.

Also this issue about liability is kind of overblown. I read from a lawyer that once said the only case that is known of an official being held liable for actions, involved lightning and took place outside. They claimed that there had not been a case where officials were ever held liable for sports rules not being applied or judgment. Considering how I have never read of such a ruling in the multiple sports or officiating publications, I think this entire issue or "liability" is silly when not only do we have protection from such action with most licenses, that the cost of that insurance would be much higher if successful judgments against officials were happening left and right.

The bottom line, work the game and do what you can to apply the rule. Doing otherwise takes away your credibility to bring the issue to light. And in my experience the assignor would likely get rid of the official that left the game, rather than the guy that did not apply a simple rule.

Peace

Rut:

If the U walked off the court because the R refused to enforce a safety rule, I do not see how the U could be accused of not honoring a game contract. By signing the contract the U is agreeing that he will conduct the game according to the rules of the game. And since his first responsibily is the safety of the contestants, refusing to officiate a game where the safety rules are not being enforced should be seen as honoring the contract. The school with whome he as the contract may not be required to pay him but if they do not he would have a very good case for recovering his game fee and other associated expenses from the R becase he is the party that did not honor his contract by enforcing the game rules as required by the contract. Ethical conduct by the U will trump the unethical conduct by the R.

MTD, Sr.