Tongue Stud (?)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Tim C
You have simply quoted a document that says what "could" happen.

I ask simply for documentation that it HAS happened.

Neither you, nor any other poster, has offered that information.

Stick to the subject. Simply prove me wrong and then I will edit my original post on this subject and offer an apology.

I hate to see officials run in fear of "potential" litigation.

All litigation is "potential" at one point.

[Tim C]

I have selected to woithdraw from this thread and allow all the others have a victory.

Thanks for all the valuable input.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 28th, 2002 at 03:58 PM]

[Mark Padgett]

I can see it now. Ref is shown tongue stud by player. Player asks ref if he has to take it out. Ref says no. Player gets hit in face with ball and tongue stud causes injury to be much more severe than if tongue stud was removed. Player's family sues. Player's family wins. Ref now living in a van, down by the river.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Tim C
You have simply quoted a document that says what "could" happen.

I ask simply for documentation that it HAS happened.

Neither you, nor any other poster, has offered that information.

Stick to the subject. Simply prove me wrong and then I will edit my original post on this subject and offer an apology.

I hate to see officials run in fear of "potential" litigation.

Why does it have to have happened before? It's against the rules. Why ignore it? Do the responsibile thing and tell the player he can't wear it and play. That doesn't mean that you live in fear.

BTW, I don't think anyone cares whether you apologize or not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Tim C
[B]Please direct me to ANY legal brief or finding that says an offical is "legally" responsible for this issue.[B]

Tee,pertaining to safety issues,did you read the case directly under the reference that I gave?It is on p7 of that report,too.It concerns a lawsuit where an official was found "legally" responsible for a safety issue.

It concerns a player not wearing protective equipment in a slow-pitch game.Dude got hurt,sued the umpire and got $24,000.Don't you think that that case is in exactly the same vein as what we are talking about?The reference is:

Nash vs. Bureau of Wildwood Crest,N.J. Superior Court,Cape May Co.
Docket No. 16624-77(1983)
"a catcher in a slow-pitch softball recreational game sustained an injury when he was struck in the eye by a softball while catching without wearing a protective mask.The playing rules did not require him to wear a mask.The player sued the umpire alleging that the umpire should have given him his mask and then umpired from behind the pitching mound instead of from behind home plate.The case was settled prior to trialwith the plaintiff receiving $24,000."

Please let me know if that one is pertinent enough for you. Personally,it scares the snot out of me!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
[/B]

BTW, I don't think anyone cares whether you apologize or not. [/B][/QUOTE]I'd say that would be true. We're just having a discussion.It's not like it's Yankees/Bosox,Duke/NC, or something really important.

[Rich]

It is impossible to read anything into that case, since it was settled.

The insurance company involved possibly figured that the opportunity cost of fighting such a small-money lawsuit was higher than settling it.

And also, I've never seen a protective mask on anyone in slow-pitch softball.

Rich

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
And also, I've never seen a protective mask on anyone in slow-pitch softball.

The umpire that got sued probably never had either,Rich.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

In the world of sue happy people one has to be more and more careful. I totally agree that it is becoming more important to protect oneself. I am a member of NASO as well and their protection is comforting.

This season already in MN we have had 2 toungue rings one in HS boys and one in Womens JuCo. We got them both removed as we saw them. In both cases the players/coaches used the excuse that: "If they are not visible (we) didn't think they needed to be removed"

I have also seen a number of metal hair barettes as well as string neclaces on ankles that we removed as well. I believe both rules FED and NCAA are pretty clear on not allowing these "decorations"

[Tim C]

I have selected to withdraw from this thread and allow all others to have the victory.

Thank you all for the important information you have shared with me.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 28th, 2002 at 03:59 PM]

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by Tim C
1) The document from NASO is not a legal brief. It is simply a paper.

2) The case you have listed has NO legal backing. It was settled out of court. No it does not only not scare me it makes me laugh. So try again.

3) I have NEVER said that I would or would not tell any player to remove the tongue stud. Any of you that have made that comment either can't read or have no argument with the facts, so you attack the person.

4) I have no problem with the "Big Dogs" on this board fighting for their patch of hardwood but I would think someone would be better and prove to me that in a legal proceeding an official has been found liable for an injury incurred by a player wearing jewelery in a FEDlandia game. That is all I have asked.

5) BTW, I get the exact treatment on this board that I was told I would get when I started posting items that the Basketball "Big Dogs" on this board control.

Have a great day after Christmas.

Tim,

What is your point? Why are you hammering so hard on legal proof. We have a number of lawyers in out local association that frequently tell us that if we knowingly mis-apply or dis-allow a rule and some one is injured, we can be found negligent. Now, has this happened? I don't know maybe, but like someone earlier said why be the first. I realize you are not saying you would allow it to occur, but I am confused why you are so amped about proof. I am sure NO official who sees a tongue stud would not make the player leave the game. I think we all need to be very aware of what could legally happen to us, and if you consider that fear, so be it. I am not losing my house because of HS game.

[Ref Daddy]

Please brother Ref's ...Lets keep this on a productive track.....

Here's where I am -

I don't like them & rules sound clear, so

Can you take these things in/out like earrings?
Am I asking too much?

[Kelvin green]

I am apologizing for long post in advance.

Tim

What are you talking about legal reference? If you are talking about a case that has established some sort of legal precedence between officiating and jewelry you may be right. I did a quick search and could not find one with a direct link between officiating and jewelry. However you may be interested in the following.

There are numerous suits brought against officials. Some states have specifically immunized officials against suits. Others have not, Referees face lawsuits why else would officials associations provide liability coverage when we join. BTW if you dont have it, I suggest you get it!

I did do some quick research that was done by other than an official's association.

Sports Lawyers Journal
Spring, 1997
4 Sports Law. J. 213

ARTICLE: THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF SPORTS OFFICIALS: DON"T TAKE THE GAME INTO YOUR OWN HANDS, TAKE THEM TO COURT!
Exerpts....

Absent a statutory breach, under the common law, it is well established that individuals have affirmative duties to avoid intentional harm to others without justification. In the U.S. this type of intentional, but legal, conduct was addressed in Porter v. Crawford & Co...In applying this concept to the issue at hand, it is apparent that an official may be found to have committed an intentional tort if the plaintiff can establish that the official's deliberate conduct resulted in monetary harm. 15 However, this cause of action is limited because the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving that the official had theintent to cause injury on the part of the official. The ability to recover for harm resulting from intentional conduct is restricted by the legal requirements for imposing liability, and hence limits its application to instances of unmistakable misconduct. [*217]

Liability based on unintentional conduct is more common. It arises from breach of an official's affirmative duties. 16 These duties may arise from statute or contract. An official may have the duty to control participants, in addition to his or her duty to possess adequate knowledge of the rules and their application. Liability is predicated upon the breach of some duty which results in a negligence cause of action.

--------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious based on the above that if we as official's breach our duties, we are liable. It would not be hard for a plaintiff to prove that we have taken those tests we are oh so proud of to establish that we know what the rules are. It would not be hard to prove that we have refereed for years and know why the rules are in place, it would not be hard to show what are duty is and that we breached it by allowing some idiot to wear jewelry inappropraitely.
__________________________________________________ _______

Now I did find a couple of other cases...

Kennel v. Carson City School Dist., 738 F. Supp. 376
asserted that that the referees at the game were negligent in not protecting him, and that their negligence should be imputed to the school district. appeal record did not discuss outcome against referees

In Nabozny v. Barnhill, 31 Ill.App.3d 212, 334 N.E.2d 258 (1975), a soccer goalie in a league for high-school-aged participants, was kicked in the head in the non-contact penalty area. The court concluded that "a player is liable for injury in a tort action if his conduct is such that it is either deliberate, wilful or with a reckless disregard for the safety of the other player so as to cause injury to that player."
The court in Nabozny expressed the view that sports are governed by two types of rules. One type aims to increase the quality of the game and theother type is designed primarily to protect participants from serious injury. The court determined that when a recognized set of rules governs the competition, every player is charged with a legal duty to refrain from conduct proscribed by a safety rule. Thus, in setting forth the standard for liability, the court stated that "a player is . . . charged with a legal duty to every other player on the field to refrain from conduct proscribed by a safety rule."

Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494
The court found that players of sports agreed to a certain level of contact and that an ordinary negligence standard was not appropriate. The court held that the standard imposed by the trial court, that parties had a duty to refrain from engaging in injury-causing conduct which was reckless or intentional was the proper standard

Carabba v. Anacortes Sch. Dist., 72 Wn.2d 939
Referee was sued as well as school district, appeal record does not show disposition of case against referee

Heck there is even an annotaltion in American Law Reports

Liability for Injury to or Death of a participant in Game or Contest ( 7 ALR 2d 204) Many of cases cited are not directly official's related but since the precedence exists against one its not hard to prove against another!
__________________________________________________ ________
I think it would be pretty easy to show that officials should be held to the same standards of players... or even a better standard. Nabronzy I think sets the standard for us as well as players. Now if you dont think this is enough I bet I could find say another 250 plus citiations where referees were sued.

It is not potential or threatened litigation. IT IS REAL. Common Law Tort Claims are easy to file, and based on what I see if there were anything close to gross negligence the referee loses. Bet a lot of get settled with insurance companies too...

You know what ignore the advice of the board and pay for a lawyer when it happens! Me I'll take the prudent road.


BTW the above is not represented to be legal advice in any way shape or form and is soley to be interpreted by the reader. The author is not an attorney and is not offering any legal opinions. Please contact your own attorney for any legal advice.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Tim C
1) The document from NASO is not a legal brief. It is simply a paper.

2) The case you have listed has NO legal backing. It was settled out of court. No it does not only not scare me it makes me laugh. So try again.

3) I have NEVER said that I would or would not tell any player to remove the tongue stud. Any of you that have made that comment either can't read or have no argument with the facts, so you attack the person.

4) I have no problem with the "Big Dogs" on this board fighting for their patch of hardwood but I would think someone would be better and prove to me that in a legal proceeding an official has been found liable for an injury incurred by a player wearing jewelery in a FEDlandia game. That is all I have asked.

5) BTW, I get the exact treatment on this board that I was told I would get when I started posting items that the Basketball "Big Dogs" on this board control.

Have a great day after Christmas.

1)I disagree wuth your first 2 statements.Using your logic,how can YOU prove to me that your statements ARE correct? Do you have a legal opinion that you can post that will confirm that?Until then,you have offered YOUR opinion only(same as other posters on this thread have).No better,no worse!
2)In regards to your statement #3,I went back over the posts and did not see any personal attacks on you.I did,however,see the phrase "no freaking clue what you are talking about",which I personally find demeaning and derogatory.Disagreeing with your opinion is certainly not a personal attack.
3)RE:#4,5- "big dogs"?,"I think someone would be better?","exact teatment....that the basketball Big Dogs on this board control"?--WOW! All this because some people don't agree with you,Tim? I believe that you're the only one that is worrying about being better.Personally,I come to this forum to keep current and to learn a few things,if I can.I try to take each post for what I think it is worth,no matter who posted it(veteran or newbie).I've also been wrong before.When I was,I said that I was wrong.I don't post here with the intent of trying to prove myself better than anyone.Can you say the same thing?

Tim,I think that you came over here with a gigantic chip on your shoulder for some reason.That's my opinion.Note the word "opinion".That's all it is,not a "personal" attack.

[Kelvin green]

I guess that it has never happened and there have been no substantial articles written on the subject. So I found a few more just in case. ..... Of course none of these should ever be considered any sort of legal reference...

Copyright (c) 1994 University of Miami Entertainment & Sports Law Review University of Miami Entertainment & Sports Law Review, 1994, 11 U. Miami Ent. & Sports L. Rev. 375, 29630 words, COMMENT: SPORTS OFFICIALS SHOULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR ACTS OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE: IS THAT THE RIGHT CALL?, KENNETH W. BIEDZYNSKI, ESQ

Copyright (c) 1998 Marquette University Marquette Sports Law Journal Spring, 1998, 8 Marq. Sports L.J. 365, 10349 words, ARTICLE: SPORTS TORTS IN WISCONSIN *, Jay A. Urban **

1994 Wisconsin Law Review. University of Wisconsin 1994 1994 Wis. L. Rev. 1005
In contrast, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Lestina v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. held that Wisconsin courts should use a standard of ordinary negligence in injury cases arising from recreational team contact sports. Additionally, the court implicitly held that a safety rule infraction alone may be sufficient to impose liability on a participant in such a sport.

Copyright (c) 1996 Northern Kentucky University Northern Kentucky University Law Review Spring, 1996, 23 N. Ky. L. Rev. 409, 14509 words, NOTE: HOKE v. CULLINAN RECKLESSNESS AS THE STANDARD FOR RECREATIONAL SPORTS INJURIES, by Brendon D. Miller

Copyright (c) 1994 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review University of Detroit Mercy Law Review Summer, 1994, 71 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 993, 18422 words, NOTES: Liability for Injuries Suffered in the Course of Recreational Sports: Application of the Negligence Standard, Ian M. Burnstein

Copyright (c) 2001 DePaul University Journal of Art and Entertainment Law Fall, 2001, 11 J. Art & Ent. Law 425, 9387 words, CASE NOTES AND COMMENTS: ANALYSIS OF MARK V. MOSER: DETERMINING DUTY OF CARE BETWEEN SPORTS CO-PARTICIPANTS IN LIGHT OF THE INDIANA COMPARATIVE FAULT STATUTE

Copyright (c) 1998 Bridgeport Law Review Association Bridgeport Law Review/Quinnipiac Law Review , Summer, 1998, 18 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 307, 24117 words, CASENOTE: Liability for Personal Injuries Sustained in Sporting Events After Jaworski v. Kiernan n1, Mark M. Rembish

Now was there any money on the line?