T Up a Fan?!?

[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 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.

A very good reasoning to allow the parent down on the court is that yes they can calm the child & assist the attending medical personnel with the case history, it just depends on the severity of the injury.

In the situation with Derrick Roland, everyone else was on the other end of the court when the coach rushed out to his side. It was after the made attempt on the other side that play was stopped after everyone realized the seriousness of what was happening.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by chseagle

For example: what would happen if David Stockton (son of John Stockton) got injured when Gonzaga was playing against the University of Portland, & John (his father) came rushing down onto the court to be by his son's side although he wasn't summoned/given permission?

If they were playing at the Chiles Center in Portland, I don't think the staff there would see this as a big deal. But then, I know plenty of people at UP and they have plenty of common sense.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

If they were playing at the Chiles Center in Portland, I don't think the staff there would see this as a big deal. But then, I know plenty of people at UP and they have plenty of common sense.

I was using the University of Portland as an example, remembering that UP is a WCC rival for Gonzaga.

Concerning the insurance issue with the ambulance, it's recently been changed to where the only people allowed with the patient is the ambulance crew. My family does not like the policy, especially since used to riding in to the hospital via shotgun in the past.

Concerning the situations where I've seen the fans rush the court/field, the officials are still within the visual confines of the playing surface. Also I did not say that the officials bear the full blame, I also said that crowd control is to blame as well. Of course, overall Game Management should announce throughout the game to remain off the court, but how often are announcements like that done? For the games where I've seen this happen in person, the announcements are non-exsistent.

Yes the Texas A&M coach could of/should of been T'd, but due to the seriousness of the injury nothing was done. All the time, it comes to a person's judgement whether or not to assess the penalty or not.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For crying out loud, this is so irrelevant it's not even funny. It's like arguing with my 9 year old.

It's Christmas. You shouldn't insult your 9-year old.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's Christmas. You shouldn't insult your 9-year old.

I've already apologized to her. She's too busy with her Christmas loot to notice.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Most of the times I've seen people rush the court, there's been more than 6 people working crowd control. Most, if not all the time, the crowd storms the court/field, the losing team has not been granted the opportunity to exit to the locker rooms. How can that not be considered unsporting conduct, especially if the fans say something to the losing team that has a negative impact or could cause a fight?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Most of the times I've seen people rush the court, there's been more than 6 people working crowd control. Most, if not all the time, the crowd storms the court/field, the losing team has not been granted the opportunity to exit to the locker rooms. How can that not be considered unsporting conduct, especially if the fans say something to the losing team that has a negative impact or could cause a fight?

You think the officials bear some responsibility for actions that take place after their job is done. They're off the court, halfway to the locker room, and you expect them to do something about the crowd? What rule do you suggest they invoke here?

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You think the officials bear some responsibility for actions that take place after their job is done. They're off the court, halfway to the locker room, and you expect them to do something about the crowd? What rule do you suggest they invoke here?

I was thinking of the circumstances where the officials are not off the court due to the crowd rushing onto the court. Like I mentioned before, I'm not putting the full responsibility on the officials, as it also falls upon the game management & crowd control.

In the situation, like I mentioned before, the losing team is unable to leave the floor due to the fans rushing the court & some of the fans say something to the losing team that could incite a fight or other negative relations.

Couldn't rule 2-8-1 be put into use here? If the officials cannot leave the floor.

If the officials are off the floor, yes it does fall upon the game management & crowd control to get the situation under control.