Legal question

[cardinalfan]

Originally Posted by sj

One girl is very big with no playing sense at all.

My favorite part of the story!

[sj]

Originally Posted by cardinalfan

My favorite part of the story!

Trying to be brief. And yet believe it or not I was kind with this statement.

[jearef]

You are not worrying too much about liability. The law would require you to act as a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here is my cross of you in the lawsuit:

Mr. Official, you observed this player for 3 quarters, did you not?

And how would you describe her ability?

Did it seem to you that she was a bit out of control?

I believe you used the phrase "knock them silly" in describing some of her previous fouls?

So, in your experience, she was a player with less than average ability who presented a higher-than-average risk of injury to other players?

And yet you allowed her to remain in the game after the rules said she should have been disqualified?

Case over. You lose.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jearef

You are not worrying too much about liability. The law would require you to act as a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here is my cross of you in the lawsuit:

Mr. Official, you observed this player for 3 quarters, did you not?

And how would you describe her ability?

Did it seem to you that she was a bit out of control?

I believe you used the phrase "knock them silly" in describing some of her previous fouls?

So, in your experience, she was a player with less than average ability who presented a higher-than-average risk of injury to other players?

And yet you allowed her to remain in the game after the rules said she should have been disqualified?

Case over. You lose.

Judging a player's ability or the risk of injury based on that ability is not part of an official's job.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by jearef

You are not worrying too much about liability. The law would require you to act as a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here is my cross of you in the lawsuit:

Mr. Official, you observed this player for 3 quarters, did you not?

And how would you describe her ability?

Did it seem to you that she was a bit out of control?

I believe you used the phrase "knock them silly" in describing some of her previous fouls?

So, in your experience, she was a player with less than average ability who presented a higher-than-average risk of injury to other players?

And yet you allowed her to remain in the game after the rules said she should have been disqualified?

Case over. You lose.

I'm not a lawyer, but "reasonable person under the circumstances" can take on a lot of different meanings....why is it so unreasonable in the course of a basketball game that a player who consistently commits hard (but not flagrant) fouls would be allowed to stay in the game as long as you as an official are under the impression that she has not reached her 5 fouls towards DQ? There are players who commit hard fouls playing at every level of basketball, what is so unreasonable about letting that player continue to play? It's not like she was walking down the street whacking people in the head knocking them silly...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jearef

And yet you allowed her to remain in the game after the rules said she should have been disqualified?

Case over. You lose.

"You'll need to talk to the official scorer, I was told she only had 4 fouls. I don't count them, I just call them."

[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.

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jearef

1. So, in your experience, she was a player with less than average ability who presented a higher-than-average risk of injury to other players?

2. And yet you allowed her to remain in the game after the rules said she should have been disqualified?

Case over. You lose.

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.

[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!

[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!

[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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

Objection--speculation.