The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Jewelry rule causes yelling (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/55730-jewelry-rule-causes-yelling.html)

Mark Padgett Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:54pm

I give up
 
OK - what was the freakin' headline? :confused:

Anchor Sun Dec 13, 2009 01:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignats75 (Post 640698)
..."Well, the referee last week let us tape them...." :

I just tell them "Tonight you have better refs...."

just another ref Sun Dec 13, 2009 03:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 642224)
I'm glad nothing bad happened, but I hope you realize that this little disclaimer was a waste of breath and wouldn't last 10 seconds in court, had something untoward occurred.

So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.

jdw3018 Sun Dec 13, 2009 03:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 642283)
So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.

The disclaimer/waiver having no value and the official's liability are unrelated.

And, I'm not sure the device is illegal by rule. I'd have to see this wire to determine if I believe it's actually dangerous.

mbyron Sun Dec 13, 2009 04:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 642283)
So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.

I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.

The reasonable person standard is a real standard, all right, but reasonable and customary practice in this instance is surely to enforce the rules. I don't see how you can consistently assert both this and this.

BillyMac Sun Dec 13, 2009 05:35pm

I'm As Frustrated As You, But I've Taken My Happy Pills Today ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 642260)
OK - what was the freakin' headline?

I've got some extra Xanax XR, if you need it.

BillyMac Sun Dec 13, 2009 05:38pm

Two Words: Billable Hours ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 642296)
I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.

Although I believe that the device may be legal, I also agree with mbyron. Win, or lose, getting sued is an expensive proposition. Even the innocent have to defend themselves.

just another ref Sun Dec 13, 2009 05:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 642296)
I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.

The reasonable person standard is a real standard, all right, but reasonable and customary practice in this instance is surely to enforce the rules. I don't see how you can consistently assert both this and this.

Reasonable in the eyes of the law and reasonable in the rules of the game would not necessarily have anything to do with each other. A1 gets clotheslined in a crowd and breaks his neck. The official was straightlined, saw nothing, called nothing. Will he get sued for this?

Matty Ross: "I have a good lawyer in J. Noble Daggett."

Ranger LaBoeuf: "She draws him like a gun." ***





***True Grit

BillyMac Sun Dec 13, 2009 06:01pm

Also Big Fan Of The Shootist ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 642321)
True Grit.

One of my favorite John Wayne movies. Best scene: Rooster Cogburn: "Fill your hands, you son of a *****."

mbyron Sun Dec 13, 2009 07:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 642321)
Reasonable in the eyes of the law and reasonable in the rules of the game would not necessarily have anything to do with each other. A1 gets clotheslined in a crowd and breaks his neck. The official was straightlined, saw nothing, called nothing. Will he get sued for this?

About this: disagree. The reasonable person standard is contextual, and so the issue is what a reasonable person who is an official would do.

About this: I know you well enough to know that you understand the difference between getting a rule wrong and getting a judgment call wrong.

Mark Padgett Mon Dec 14, 2009 06:36pm

I figured out the headline
 
"Lindburgh Baby Kidnapped!"

Am I correct?

mbyron Tue Dec 15, 2009 07:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 642623)
"Lindburgh Baby Kidnapped!"

Am I correct?

I apologize for exercising people with the headline remark. When I said the thread title reminds me of "a headline from the 30's," I meant a 30's-style headline, not a specific headline.

ref3808 Tue Dec 15, 2009 08:43am

Hearing Aids - Cochlear Implant
 
I have two children with HA's, both played basketball at various levels, youth, travel, AAU. Though I believe the risk of injury to be zero and they could have easily played with the HA's, they chose not to because sweat was too damaging to the HA. (a set of good digital aids is about $5,000 - $6,000 and not normally covered by insurance) Coaches were fine with hand signals to call plays, their teammates knew to make sure they were aware what was being run.

Only one official over many years, thinking that my son wasn't "playing the whiste" ever said "Son, are you deaf?". To which he replied, "No sir, just hard of hearing". The official couldn't have been more apologetic.

I have not had direct experience with CI's but I've read a lot about them. The substantial risk factor is not injury from the wire itself. Parents of children with CI's are usually advised to avoid contact sports, such as football, where head injury occurs with higher frequency. Internal damage from a blow might only be correctable through additional surgery. (the literature on this is pretty easy to find with a simple Google search) Of course I've seen my share of head-on-head contact during loose balls and kids going down during rebound action and hitting the floor hard. I can't quantify the risk from that.

Having had two hearinig impaired children I understand the importance attached to their participation in sports with their peers and "not feeling different" from the other children.

Having said all of that, it seems that the burden here is on the rules makers to determine if CI's are allowable.

bellnier Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:10am

Here you go. I can't believe someone spent the time, energy and moolah on this...sheesh, just take the damn things out.

Patent US20090229619

grunewar Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:30am

White, beige, black........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bellnier (Post 642718)
Here you go. I can't believe someone spent the time, energy and moolah on this...sheesh.

Patent US20090229619

Never saw that before. Wonder if the NFHS will allow a manufacturers logo and make sure it matches the color of uniform....:D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1