Jewelry rule causes yelling

[Mark Padgett]

OK - what was the freakin' headline?

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

..."Well, the referee last week let us tape them...." :

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

OK - what was the freakin' headline?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True Grit.

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

"Lindburgh Baby Kidnapped!"

Am I correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

"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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bellnier

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....