Legal question

[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!

[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?".

[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?