Originally Posted by sj (Post 576335)

(I didn't know but the coach and the scorer had agreed to try to keep her in the game.)

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 576337)

I would love to see this on Judge Judy.

Originally Posted by sj (Post 576335)

Would an official have any potential legal liability if he allows a player to remain in the game in spite of that player having reached 5 fouls? For example after she should have been out of the game she then fouls an opponent hard and the opponent would get hurt.

Here's a long story as short as I can make it. 9th grade girls team only has 5 players. One girl is very big with no playing sense at all. She'll foul a shooter by just bringing her arms down on top of the shooter and as a result will just knock the shooter silly. Talking to her does no good. I called what I thought was the 5th foul on her but the scorer said 4. So I thought maybe I could be wrong. When I called the next one the scorer still told me 4. I knew I was right so I made her leave. (I didn't know but the coach and the scorer had agreed to try to keep her in the game.)

Later I told the coach if we kept her in after getting 5 fouls and she knocked someone down and go their head cracked open then there could be legal issues involved. (This girl would be perfectly capable of it too) I try to be a common sense guy but am I right here or am I worrying too much? Thanks.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 576341)

No, you're not worrying too much. Good job on sending the girl off after you knew it was her 5th. And good job on telling the coach exactly how it is.

And yes, shame on the coach and scorer for contravening the purpose of ethics. :mad: I feel for the scorekeeper if s/he is a young person. They could have had their judgment questioned by a position of authority.

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 576345)

I think if I knew that the coach intentionally conspired to keep his player in the game like this, that would be the end of his night...ESPECIALLY if this was a young person that the coach manipulated...how/when did you find out that the coach was doing this intentionally?

Originally Posted by sj (Post 576335)

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

Originally Posted by cardinalfan (Post 576365)

My favorite part of the story! :D

Originally Posted by jearef (Post 576422)

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.

Originally Posted by jearef (Post 576422)

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.

Originally Posted by jearef (Post 576422)

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

Case over. You lose.

Originally Posted by jearef (Post 576422)

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 576435)

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 576441)

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 576435)

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

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 576442)

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!:D

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 576451)

It was in alphabetical order. Duh! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 576435)

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.

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef (Post 576546)

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

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 576604)

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 just another ref (Post 576441)

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

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch (Post 576445)

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

Originally Posted by ranjo (Post 576429)

For what its worth -:rolleyes:

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.:eek:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 576604)

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 576682)

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?".

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle (Post 576755)

Perry Como? You're kidding, right?