Legal question

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1.
Redirect:

A. Did the scorekeeper inform you that this player had just 4 fouls when in fact she had 5?

B. Did you have any reason to doubt the scorekeeper's information?

C. Would any experienced official have done exactly as you did under the circumstances?


Case over. You win.

1. I don't know how many she actually had. I have no book out on the court.

2. Possibly, but it is still the scorekeeper's job to count fouls, not mine.

3. Objection! You are asking my client to speculate about what others might do.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

1. I don't know how many she actually had. I have no book out on the court.

2. Possibly, but it is still the scorekeeper's job to count fouls, not mine.

3. Objection! You are asking my client to speculate about what others might do.

Either there are too many lawyers on this board or you guys watched too much LA Law!! B/C some of you actually sound like you know what you are talking about!

Or some of us actually have been in a courtroom, in some fashion. But then again, there must be quite a few Law and Order fans on the board, with the infiltration of those shows!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

C. Would any experienced official have done exactly as you did under the circumstances?

Objection--speculation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Either there are too many lawyers on this board or you guys watched too much LA Law!! B/C some of you actually sound like you know what you are talking about!

I'm not a lawyer, just not an idiot. Last extensive dealings I had in a lawyer's office was settling my father's estate. There were issues involving his wife and the possibility of "a spouse in necessitous circumstances." In laymen terms, this is called "Gimme, gimme!" The lawyer was on the phone, and I picked up a book on his desk and looked up the situation. When he hung up, I asked a question about a passage I was reading. He was surprised. "How did you find that?" It was in alphabetical order. Duh!

Originally Posted by just another ref

It was in alphabetical order. Duh!

Another proof just because one has an advanced degree doesn't make them any smarter. I would actually take to vomiting if any lawyer starts calling themself Dr. Whatever just because the JD degree is supposedly terminal (like a PhD).

[sj]

On this type of thing. Has anybody ever seen a source which might list actual cases which have actually been brought up where officials are concerned? Win or lose. That might be interesting to see. Or does anybody know of any that have been brought up?

[amusedofficial]

No legal liability whatsoever. I have seen no legal theories advanced that would make me think otherwise.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. Yes

2. No, the rules do not require disqualifying players with less than average ability who present higher-than-average risk.

Redirect:

A. Did the scorekeeper inform you that this player had just 4 fouls when in fact she had 5?

B. Did you have any reason to doubt the scorekeeper's information?

C. Would any experienced official have done exactly as you did under the circumstances?


Case over. You win.

Unless, of course, Perry Mason is the plaintiff's attorney.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Unless, of course, Perry Mason is the plaintiff's attorney.

Bingo!! ( I know that's not a legal term, but it still signifies the winner!)

Here in Portland, Oregon, Perry Mason has played at noon on a certain channel since it first went into syndication back in the 60's. Every week day. When I was a child, and was home sick from school, I watched it. When I was a college student and was home from school, I watched, and now that I'm a grandmother, when my granddaughter is at my house out of school (her mother works), we watch it. Some of the episodes, I can tell you who did it, just by the title.

One thing I know for sure, Hamilton Burger was an idiot. He never learned that if Perry Mason was on the case, he ought to just give up before he even started. It would have saved LA a lot of money in all those useless trials.

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

One thing I know for sure, Hamilton Burger was an idiot. He never learned that if Perry Mason was on the case, he ought to just give up before he even started. It would have saved LA a lot of money in all those useless trials.

True, but Mr. Burger would never have found the true guilty party without Mr. Mason's help. He would have had to spend some money somehow!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't know how many she actually had. I have no book out on the court.

Ask Mark Padgett about how he keeps track of fouls by counting his fingers, and taking off his shoes, and counting on his toes. He's what you call an expert.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

There must be quite a few Law and Order fans on the board, with the infiltration of those shows!

Speaking of which, what happens to my favorite show, actually three different shows, when Leno takes over the 10:00 p.m. NBC time slot. I don't get home from my games in time to watch a 9:00 p.m. Law and Order.

[BillyMac]

We've had references to Perry Mason, and I Love Lucy, in the same week. Some of the younger officials on the Forum are scratching their head and saying, "Why are they talking about Perry Como, and Lucy from Peanuts?".

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by ranjo

For what its worth -

I once worked a rec league where players were allowed back into the game after 5 fouls (if there were no other players on the bench), but each additional foul also cost them a technical.

Sounds like Modified NBA rules. During a pro-level summer league, we'd invariably have games where one of the teams would only have 5 players show up, and once a player on that team picked up foul #6, NBA rules allow them to stay in the game, but every personal foul beyond six is a T (assessed to the team?) in addition to any foul shots that come with the foul.