T Up a Fan?!?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

And if you get between me and my injured kid, there will be a much bigger problem. This is utter nonsense.

I won't, but security might.

You don't belong out there. It's that simple. I don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping this. The playing court is for the players and officials, no one else. PERIOD.

When there is an injury the appropriate people are beckoned on to attend to that individual.

[Smitty]

OK I give up.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

OK I give up.

Good because Dad's butt belongs in the stands. That is the area to which his admission ticket entitles him, not the playing court.

For the sake of argument, let's say that a child suffers a life-threatening injury on the court and the game is stopped. What skills does the average parent have which is going to help that child? Unless the parent is an EMT (fireman/police/first response trained) or medical doctor what good is it going to do to have the person down there? Is it going to please you that your child was able to die in your arms?

What happens when your child is transported to the hospital for surgery? Does the surgeon permit mom and dad into the operating room? No, you sit in the hallway and wait while the appropriate people handle the situation. This is no different, but because there isn't a wall between the stands and the court people somehow feel entitled to come out there. People really need to get over their sense of self-importance and remain where they belong.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

People really need to get over their sense of self-importance .....

Am I the only one who sees this statement as ironic?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Am I the only one who sees this statement as ironic?

Yes, you are.

It is so like you to try to turn such a statement around and point it at an official who insists that people don't go where they shouldn't. You simply don't grasp the argument.

You probably have a picture of an official running over trying to stop the people from coming out of the stands. That is not realistic.

What is realistic is for the official to find a far away location until the situation finishes and then to assess whatever penalties are necessary for the conduct. That is a big difference from being personally involved, and that is what makes the people who run over "self-important" and the official not, hence there is nothing ironic about the original statement. Do you need a lesson in the usage of the word? mbyron can certainly fill you in.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, you are.

It is so like you to try to turn such a statement around and point it at an official who insists that people don't go where they shouldn't. You simply don't grasp the argument.

You probably have a picture of an official running over trying to stop the people from coming out of the stands. That is not realistic.

What is realistic is for the official to find a far away location until the situation finishes and then to assess whatever penalties are necessary for the conduct. That is a big difference from being personally involved, and that is what makes the people who run over "self-important" and the official not.

So you stand back quietly and watch when Mom comes out to help her son up. When it turns out to be an ankle sprain, the son sits on the bench with an ice pack, but Mom has to leave? And the other team gets free throws??

Thanks, Mom.

[gslefeb]

There are two questions in this arguement.

One: Do you think Parents should come onto the court to see their injured Child?

Two: If Parent does come onto the court without being beckoned, would you give them a T?


I would rather the Parent's STAY in the stands, until waived onto the court by either me or the Coach.

I would not give a T to a parent in any case.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

There are two questions in this arguement.

One: Do you think Parents should come onto the court to see their injured Child?

Two: If Parent does come onto the court without being beckoned, would you give them a T?

That is a nice way to frame this debate.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

I would rather the Parent's STAY in the stands, until waived onto the court by either me or the Coach. [or game management]

Agree.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

I would not give a T to a parent in any case.

Disagree.

[chseagle]

A parent can be involved throughout the whole process, however when medical personnel are directly involved, the parents are to be as active bystanders (answering medical history questions), not being in the middle of everything getting in the way.

If no medical personnel are available, the parent can become more directly involved.

I'm surprised it's not a regulation for all high school athletic events that EMS must be present. Apparently the NCAA has this regulation, as is what I heard after the unfortunate incident with Derrick Roland.

Unfortunately not all schools have the luxury of having Athletic Trainers available to them at all times.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by chseagle

A parent can be involved throughout the whole process, however when medical personnel are directly involved, the parents are to be as active bystanders (answering medical history questions), not being in the middle of everything getting in the way.

If no medical personnel are available, the parent can become more directly involved.

I'm surprised it's not a regulation for all high school athletic events that EMS must be present. Apparently the NCAA has this regulation, as is what I heard after the unfortunate incident with Derrick Roland.

Unfortunately not all schools have the luxury of having Athletic Trainers available to them at all times.

chseagle, sorry partner but you have no say in what I do if my child is injured in a game. If I choose to remain by his/her side during the entire time medical personnel are atending, that is what I will do. The best thing you can do is sit behind the scorer's table and say a prayer.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by chseagle

A parent can be involved throughout the whole process, however when medical personnel are directly involved, the parents are to be as active bystanders (answering medical history questions), not being in the middle of everything getting in the way.

If no medical personnel are available, the parent can become more directly involved.

Sorry, but your statement has no basis in fact from a legal standpoint. You clearly have no concept of the legal and ethical principles of informed consent regarding medical diagnosis and treatment and who can legally make related decisions. Except in extreme life threatening circumstances, medical personnel may not treat without consent.Those "signed permissions" some want to place so much stock in are only valid if the parent/guardian are not physically present to make the decisions in person.

Oh, and in response to the question you asked Smitty, I do have a law enforcement background with extensive training in security and crowd control - news flash....a parent attempting to go to the side of an apparently significantly injured child does not pose a threat from either standpoint. Preventing them from exercising their legal rights could, however, be a significant liability issue....and likely a criminal one as well.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Am I the only one who sees this statement as ironic?

No.

[bbcoach7]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What happens when your child is transported to the hospital for surgery? Does the surgeon permit mom and dad into the operating room? People really need to get over their sense of self-importance and remain where they belong.

Bad analogy, completely different situation. In this case, the parent has given their consent to the surgeon either by the medical waiver form, or much more likely by the forms signed at the hospital. In any case, consent has been given by the parent to the doctor. In the case of a player down, there is nobody on that court who the parent has given their consent to. Mom and Dad are still ultimate authority. They can refuse the surgery even against the best medical advice.

Your idea of who might want to consider their sense of self importance is a good idea, as often our best ideas are the ones we realize are for and about our selves, even when we originally though they were intended for others.

This hypothetical situation has nothing to do with any sort of sense of self importance. The very idea is an injury and insult to intelligent linear thought. When a baby comes out of your vagina, there's a very strong emotional attachment that can cause an adult to forget all about silly rules when they see their child hurt on the floor. THis is of the deep care, concern, and passion a parent has for their child, which has zero to do with a sense of self importance.

I know I'm a howler monkey, so automatically I have no credibility, but I've read a lot of your comments, and I used to think you were a pretty sharp referee who exhibited a good measure of smarts. But your comments in this thread are just bizzare.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Smitty

OK I give up.

Smart move, Smitty. NevadaRef has tunnel vision, is never open to the possibility he could be wrong, and is entirely too dogmatic. Personally, I think he would make a very poor partner.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Smart move, Smitty. NevadaRef has tunnel vision, is never open to the possibility he could be wrong, and is entirely too dogmatic. Personally, I think he would make a very poor partner.

Merry Christmas to you too.

BTW I read an interesting sentiment lately...

"We have to do a much better job of creating a zone of predictability for players and coaches, of making officiating more of a science and less of an art."
"I came up at a time when refereeing was all feel. But coaches want absolutes. And referees should want absolutes."
John Adams, NCAA Coordinator of Men's Basketball Officiating

It seems that being dogmatic has a future.