2010-11 NFHS Rule Changes

[Judtech]

JRut - I was giving the offiical the benefit of the doubt in passing the state test. If said official had NOT passed the test and was officiating a sanctioned game as an official who was NOT certified....wow, that would be a home run for the plantiff.

JUST - The play you described would easily fit under an assumption of risk clause. Further it would have no bearing on the case as this was a case regarding a concussion not a torn ACL. Now if you wanted to show a pattern of negligence, you may be allowed to introduce evidence that shows a history of injuries during this officials game but that may or may not work. If you were to actually be allowed to use that defense, it would be very easy to get video of 1000s of "missed travel" calls that resulted in no injury whatsoever. The point being that iti is a reasonable to assume that 'missed travels' do not result in debilitating injuries. To push the point, show video of contact that caused concussions, preferably, one that looks a WHOLE LOT like the contact in the lawsuit. Finally, you are actually making the plantiff's case for them. IF you are arguing that this official should enforce the traveling rule, then it shold follow that the official should be required to enforce the rule on concussions.

MBYRON - Amen brother!

[JRutledge]

Judtech: Are you a lawyer? (Very serious question bTW)

This is why I think the NF has really errored on this issue. There really is no way we should be identifying specific injuries. All we should be doing is determining if a player is injured, not trying to determine what kind of injury and something like a head injury. ESPN's "E:60" last night did a story on a player that had multiple concussions in football games and was debilitated. I am not sure this is something we can identify from our position. I have no problem sending off a kid that is not able to play or appears to play, but not diagnose why they cannot play and then be partly responsible for if they come back in the game. As I said before football has cleaned up or clarified this on some level, but why even open this up to us. We do not know many of the situations a kid might identify such an injury. And if officials have been sued for calls in games and injunctions were held to allow the court to review whether someone advances in the playoffs, why would we not expect some lawyer to try to find some reason to sue an official over some language the NF decided to put into the situation? These are Doctor, coaches, schools and a parent issue, not an officiating issue.

Peace