T Up a Fan?!?

[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.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

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.

It would all depend on the jurisdictional rules/regualtions. It would also depend on the training that the crowd control/security personnel have as to what the charges can be. If the crowd control is licensed, more liability can be brought against them depending on their actions. However in most circumstances, for school sporting events the crowd control is normally school staff that are not licensed as crowd control/secuirty, or volunteers that may or may not have any training or be licensed.

In all situations it's always think about the situation as it's happening & what should & should not be done. Not always will a parent be a bother to medical personnel. Nowhere did I say completely ban them from giving input, this can still be done by not being directly involved.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Nowhere did I say completely ban them from giving input, this can still be done by not being directly involved.

Here is the quote I object to:

Originally Posted by chseagle

If I was working crowd control in this situation, I would physically put myself between the parent & the student-athlete so that they could not become one until after removed from the court. One of the primary rules in crowd control is to de-escalate the situation before it gets blown out of proportion. By allowing the parent onto the court, you have just allowed a match to be lit in a potentially explosive situation.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Here is the quote I object to:

In other words, would allow the medical personnel the room needed to perform their duties without direct interference. When I said "be one" I was meaning be side-by-side to their injured child with direct interference to medical personnel. There always are extenuating circumstances, no matter how a person sees things. However, a person of sound mind & judgement would allow the medical personnel the room needed to perform their duties for the treatment of the injured.

A parent running out onto the court to be by the side of their injured child, is not considered at the time to be of sound mind & judgement.

A parent can still be involved in the decisions of a child's medical treatment without being right there directly next to the child.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

1. In other words, would allow the medical personnel the room needed to perform their duties without direct interference. When I said "be one" I was meaning be side-by-side to their injured child with direct interference to medical personnel. There always are extenuating circumstances, no matter how a person sees things. However, a person of sound mind & judgement would allow the medical personnel the room needed to perform their duties for the treatment of the injured.

2. A parent running out onto the court to be by the side of their injured child, is not considered at the time to be of sound mind & judgement.

3. A parent can still be involved in the decisions of a child's medical treatment without being right there directly next to the child.

I'm putting myself in the place of the parent here rather than the official.

1. You will not stop me, and any attempt will be met with force. It may or may not be right, but that's how it is; so your best bet is to stay out of the way. You will not stop me from being at my child's side. You will not determine whether I'm interfering with medical personnel. Don't even try it.

2. You are not qualified to determine whether I am of sound mind. Any attempts to get between me and my child by you are likely to affect my sound mind, however. I'm normally not a violent person, nor are most people. Try separating a parent from their child, however, and things change drastically and quickly.

3. Perhaps, but you do not get to make that choice. The parent does.

Why do you insist in telling a parent in this situation what's best for them? How old are you again? Do you have children?

Medical first responders are trained to deal with parents here, because they have to get their input and permission to so much as give them pain killers.

And to answer a question Nevada asked before. Would I go in the ambulance? If there was room, you're damned right I would. If not, I'd be there ASAP. Let's just say the odds of me beating the ambulance to the hospital are pretty good.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And to answer a question Nevada asked before. Would I go in the ambulance? If there was room, you're damned right I would. If not, I'd be there ASAP. Let's just say the odds of me beating the ambulance to the hospital are pretty good.

My son was involved in bike vs. truck accident at home while I'll was at work. My job is twice as far from the hospital as my job, but I beat the ambulance there by a long shot.

[jdw3018]

This entire thread has spun a bit out of control, but it's an excellent read.

I had a recent example of a parent coming onto the court. Girls' V game. Girl goes down awkwardly when attempting to defend a shot (and gets called for a block in doing so) and obviously breaks her wrist/arm. Pretty nasty looking.

Beckon the coach immediately, move away. Mom comes out of the stands without being beckoned/without permission. She holds her daughter's hand while the coach and trainer attend to her and an administrator calls ahead to the hospital. Etc, etc.

Girl and mom leave with the trainer to head to the hospital.

We resume. No technicals.

Would a technical foul have made the game better? Not in a long shot. Was it deserved? In absolutely no way. Mom didn't interfere with the game, in fact, she calmed her daughter which likely helped get the game underway faster and with less emotional distress for others.

I can understand a desire to keep parents off the court in most cases. I can even see if someone wants game management to talk to fans/specific parents after an incident to let them know it would be appropriate to wait to be beckoned.

Asking GM to eject them and then issuing a technical foul is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. And the T is completely without rules support. I'm shocked Nevada has taken a position so unsupported by the rules and in contradiction to the spirit of the rule referenced.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm putting myself in the place of the parent here rather than the official.

1. You will not stop me, and any attempt will be met with force. It may or may not be right, but that's how it is; so your best bet is to stay out of the way. You will not stop me from being at my child's side. You will not determine whether I'm interfering with medical personnel. Don't even try it.

2. You are not qualified to determine whether I am of sound mind. Any attempts to get between me and my child by you are likely to affect my sound mind, however. I'm normally not a violent person, nor are most people. Try separating a parent from their child, however, and things change drastically and quickly.

3. Perhaps, but you do not get to make that choice. The parent does.

Why do you insist in telling a parent in this situation what's best for them? How old are you again? Do you have children?

Medical first responders are trained to deal with parents here, because they have to get their input and permission to so much as give them pain killers.

And to answer a question Nevada asked before. Would I go in the ambulance? If there was room, you're damned right I would. If not, I'd be there ASAP. Let's just say the odds of me beating the ambulance to the hospital are pretty good.

Concerning riding in the ambulance, here the only people allowed in the ambulance in the ambulance is the driver & ambulance crew along with the patient, no one else is allowed to ride into the hospital, even when there is room, due to new insurance that has been put into effect.

In the cases where people rush out onto the field/court after the final horn sounds, some of the blame is that officials are not fully enforcing the rules, while some of the blame is that the crowd control/security has been told to allow it, even though it is considered unsporting conduct.

[APG]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Concerning riding in the ambulance, here the only people allowed in the ambulance in the ambulance is the driver & ambulance crew along with the patient, no one else is allowed to ride into the hospital, even when there is room, due to new insurance that has been put into effect.

In the cases where people rush out onto the field/court after the final horn sounds, some of the blame is that officials are not fully enforcing the rules, while some of the blame is that the crowd control/security has been told to allow it, even though it is considered unsporting conduct.

Enforce what after the final horn? If an official is doing his job, he's getting the heck out of dodge as soon as the horn is blowing. As soon as were away from the visual confines of the court, our jurisdiction ends. Spectators rushing the court is a game management issue. And in reality, how many times are fans really rushing on the court? Once, maybe twice a season at most?

And the point about the Derrick situation is there was a technical violation of the rules but the officials used common sense. The head coach was on the court during a live ball and was not beckoned.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Concerning riding in the ambulance, here the only people allowed in the ambulance in the ambulance is the driver & ambulance crew along with the patient, no one else is allowed to ride into the hospital, even when there is room, due to new insurance that has been put into effect.

For crying out loud, this is so irrelevant it's not even funny. It's like arguing with my 9 year old. It's partly my fault for answering Nevada's red herring, however....

A quick search on the 'net will show that policies vary all over the place due to insurance and other reasons. Some will only allow it in the case of children, others will allow the parents to ride in the front seat.

Again, not relevant, though.

Originally Posted by chseagle

In the cases where people rush out onto the field/court after the final horn sounds, some of the blame is that officials are not fully enforcing the rules, while some of the blame is that the crowd control/security has been told to allow it, even though it is considered unsporting conduct.

Again, this displays your thorough lack of understanding the rules. Once the game is over, the officials do not hold any responsibility for fans coming onto the court or field. How in the world are you putting that on the officials? I'm seriously curious about that statement.

It's 100% game management/crowd control. And, FWIW, I wouldn't expect a staff of 6 people to prevent a crowd from storming the court after a big win. That's when you just sit back and try to take names for charges later if the school chooses to do so.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by chseagle

A parent running out onto the court to be by the side of their injured child, is not considered at the time to be of sound mind & judgement.

A parent can still be involved in the decisions of a child's medical treatment without being right there directly next to the child.

Oxymoron.

A parent running on to the floor to check their child isn't of sound mind and judgment but is allowed to make decisions on their medical treatment?

Wow, are you an attorney, or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Originally Posted by chseagle

Concerning riding in the ambulance, here the only people allowed in the ambulance in the ambulance is the driver & ambulance crew along with the patient, no one else is allowed to ride into the hospital, even when there is room, due to new insurance that has been put into effect.

In the cases where people rush out onto the field/court after the final horn sounds, some of the blame is that officials are not fully enforcing the rules, while some of the blame is that the crowd control/security has been told to allow it, even though it is considered unsporting conduct.

Well, here we have it. We've looked for an expert that can answer any question we have in any instance of life and he is now here. chseagle appears to be an expert on everything. My young firend, you would do wise to read more and post less.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Oxymoron.

A parent running on to the floor to check their child isn't of sound mind and judgment but is allowed to make decisions on their medical treatment?

Wow, are you an attorney, or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?



Well, here we have it. We've looked for an expert that can answer any question we have in any instance of life and he is now here. chseagle appears to be an expert on everything. My young friend, you would do wise to read more and post less.

You speaketh the truth BBR

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

you would do wise to read more and post less.

Some of the best advice on this entire thread as it applies to the rest of the internet as well.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

Some of the best advice on this entire thread as it applies to the rest of the internet as well.

A truly ironic post

[bbcoach7]

Originally Posted by chseagle

If the crowd control is licensed, more liability can be brought against them depending on their actions. However in most circumstances, for school sporting events the crowd control is normally school staff that are not licensed as crowd control/secuirty, or volunteers that may or may not have any training or be licensed.

There is no such thing as a licensed crowd control. Not even a police officer is a "licensed" person. There is a very significant legal difference between someone who holds a "license," and someone who holds a "certification." No State, organizing body, or anything else you want to call it or can come up with offers a licence for crowd control. There's just no such thing, got it?

Sometimes less is more, and you're proof of that. The more you say, the more evident it is that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about. One of the biggest liabilities in any situation is somebody who has training, but very little experience. Training is necessary, but experience is far more valuable than training. Training without a lot of experience only qualifies someone for "training wheels." Training without a lot of experience qualifies a person to follow the direction of someone who does have experience.

Stay behind the table. Don't get up till the game is over unless it's to get your free hot dog. Don't interact with coaches, players, or fans. Let the teams or the referee's take care of untucked jerseys, resist the urge to say something. In fact, as if your life depended on it, resist all impulces to do or say anything more involved with the game than your job. If barely anybody in the building has noticed your presence, you've probably done your job well.