I spooted on of these flash little wonders in the tongue of a JV player.

Legal?

What rule?

What risk?

Illegal

R3-5-6

Getting your butt sued off if there's an injury.

No.
3-5 Art. 6
You mean besides the player looking rediculous?...

[Edited by Mike Burns on Dec 25th, 2002 at 09:10 AM]

Seeing it.
 

You can only enforce the rule if you see it. If you do not see it, I am not asking all the players to open their mouths to show me or confirm that they do not have a tougue ring. This is also why you ask the coaches, "are your player's properly equipt?" When they say "yes," it takes some of the responsibility off of you.

Just a thought.

Peace

Yeah, but if you see it, you've got to take care of it.

"You can only enforce the rule if you see it."

D@mn! Can't argue with that one, can we?

If you don't see it, it doesn't matter anyway. Duh!

Do you want your bottle?
 

Basically, you do not go looking for it. But maybe in your parts, you guys require that kind of thing.

Duh, whatever, like totaaaallyaaaa!!! :eek:

Peace

Do you guys check for nipple rings, too?

Not on male participants. :D

All of you out in Portland need to stop telling Mark that he can do this!

OK
 

I have selected to allow everyone else to win.

Thanks for the thought provoking answers.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 28th, 2002 at 03:56 PM]

Re: OK
 

Did you ever hear of the National Association of Sports Officials,TEE?

They commissioned a legal brief on "Limited Liability for Sports Officials" and posted it on their website.You can find it at:
http://www.naso.org/rprt.htm
Just click on the file.You will need pdf to read it.

Please note the sentence on p7-- "One area that might result in successful litigation is when a sports official fails to enforce a safety rule such as the rule that prohibits a player from wearing jewelry in basketball".

Would you now care to revisit your statement about "no freaking clue" and assign it to the proper personage?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 25th, 2002 at 04:33 AM]

JR
 

I have selected to withdraw from this thread and allow everyone else to win.

Thanks for the thought provoking and personal views for all those who participated.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 28th, 2002 at 03:57 PM]

Re: OK
 

Hmmm--"legal reference"?

The study commissioned by NASO through a lawyer isn't a legal reference,TEE?

Whatever! Have a good holiday season!

While it may not have happened in the past, I don't want to be the first one sued.

No one thought that McDonald's could be liable for kids getting fat, but an idiotic professor at my school is suing for just that. Even if McDonald's (or me, in the above case) wins, they have legal costs to pay, plus the hassle of dealing with a lawsuit.

Re: JR
 

All litigation is "potential" at one point.

All
 

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]

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. :rolleyes:

Re: JR
 

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.

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!

Re: Re: JR
 

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.:D

Settled cases don't exactly set precedent
 

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

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

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"

All
 

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]

Re: Boy do I love the way you guys attack
 

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.

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?

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.

Re: Boy do I love the way you guys attack
 

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.

Where's the apology???
 

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?

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter - if they can't take it off, they can't play. (I often joke about even "soldered" jewelery having to come off.)

That having been said, it's amazing how quickly so-called 'permanent' jewelery comes off when told that they can't play without it.

All
 

I have selected to withdraw from this thread and allow the darkside to claim victory.

Thank you all for teaching me a lot about each of you and mostly thank you for allowing me to learn about myself.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 28th, 2002 at 04:00 PM]

Re: Hmmm,
 

"Barnyard lawyers"?.Fits right in with "no freaking clue what you are talking about".You sure are a class act,Tee!

Btw,you haven't explained yet exactly what YOUR legal basis is for disclaiming everything that you have so far.You haven't posted one thing that would back up any of your statements.Exactly how do you know that there is NO DOCUMENTATION?Just gonna disappear without answering Kelvin's posts,too?

You also haven't posted anything on this board yet that would convince me that any evaluation that you would make of anyone,if it concerned the rules or the mechanics of basketball officiating,would be of any worthwile use to them.I get the feeling that you would be unable to evaluate certain individuals on this forum in an impersonal mannner,which is a prime requisite.Again,that's not personal on my part,just MHO.

Re: Boy do I love the way you guys attack
 

I ask you two questions and you take that as an attack? Wow. I believe you're anticipating the foul, not the play. :(

I don't know whether there's ever been a suit brought or not. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me because I'm not going to put myself in that position, if I can help it.

Like I said, no need to apologize, you're entitled to your opinion.

Tim
Barnyard lawyers? Give me a break. Where did you take your Tort Liability Class? or your legal precedence class?

THIS IS SIMPLE TORT LAW!

Most cases do not have published opinions unless they were heard on appeal... If there was a jury verdict and no appeal there would not be a record without spending a ton of research...

But I guess I am pigheaded go figure admit your wrong!

If you knew anything about Torts you would not be so arrogant to think that referees have not been sued for their actions.... Ask Jim Bain... he filed suit and the defendants counterclaimed with a referee malpractice case that went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court it was tossed up still had to be litigated!


In Smith v. National Football League, Bubba Smith,sued for injuries he suffered from hitting an aluminum down marker which remained fixed in the ground during play. He alleged that the equipment was dangerous, and that the officials holding the chains were negligent for not ensuring the marker was removed. While the officials were not found to be liable, the case is significant because the issue was allowed to go to the jury, establishing for the first time that a sports official could be found liable for negligence during an athletic event. YOURE RIGHT THE OFFICIALS WON THIS BUT THE PRECEDENCE TP TAKE IT TO A JURY WAS ESTABLISHED.

IF WE CAN BE FOUND LIABLE WE WILL!

In Carabba v. Anacortes School District No. 103,the plaintiff, a high school wrestler, sued the school district through its agent, the referee. the case raised the possibility of imposing liability on an official for failing to properly supervise the athletic contest.


if a sports official's conduct is found to be the cause in fact of an injury, a plaintiff must next establish whether there exists legal liability in the form of proximate causation. Once proximate cause and factual causation are proven, liability may be imposed on the official if no plausible defenses to counter the claim exist.

THIS GOES BACK TO A FAMOUS CASE HADLEY V BAXENDALE....


Officials get sued! Deal with it... Many get settled. Most probably dont get appealed. The ones that do get appealed are where they bring in a deep pockets to get more money and school districts, athletic associations, etc are involved.

The ability to sue has been established by the courts. The only way to win the lawsuit is hope that the state has liability limitation/immunity statutes for sports officials.. or you prove that your actions were not reckless, negligent, or grossly negligent.

I agree with others on the board I will not put myself in a position to have to try and defend a lawsuit. It takes time, money and a lot of grief to go through some of these suits and we dont need the grief.

BTW I found an article that stated in Wisconsin, sports officials have been sued since at least 1914 in that case the boxing referee was exonerated but the point is suits have happened for almost 100 years and they arent going away!







[Edited by Kelvin green on Dec 27th, 2002 at 01:12 AM]

Kelvin,those posts that you made were a whole bunch of work on your part.

They were interesting,pertintent and germane,and useful!

Thanks.

Who are these mysterious "big dogs" who dominate discussion? I see no venom or way of topic argument here.

Tim, I am still waiting to know why proof of a lawsuit is so important to you?

This kinda fits into the topic, so figured I'd ask. Have you ever warned a team or player about behavior that could ultimately prove dangerous?

An example: We participated in a high school varsity tournament last week. First game, played a team of floppin' fools. In the 2nd quarter one of our players broke in for a lay-up. A defender set his position on the weakside of the basket. When our player came down he came down on the defender. Charge was called, no problem. But, the defender, in his attempt to make the charge look good, flopped. When he did he effectively undercut our player. Our player fell awkwardly and broke his wrist. Had surgery yesterday.

Don't get me wrong - in no way were the officials at fault, and the defender wasn't trying to play dirty, just a very unfortunate situation. But, if the defender hadn't flopped we simply would've turned the ball over, and run to the other end.

It all depends on what the official sees. If I saw him clearly flop w/o contact, I am going to hit the D with the foul in this sitch. If I see contact, it could be a different call. It is one of thoose hafta see it plays. Too bad your kid got hurt, no one wants to ever see that.

Re: OK
 

Omigod! I just realized that we've been arguing the legality of wearing jewelry with Mr. TEE!:eek:

All
 

I have selected to withdraw from this thread and allow y'all to claim your vicotries.

I have, by participating in this thread, learned a whole lot about each of you and a "hole" lot about myself.

Thanks for all the valuable information.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Dec 28th, 2002 at 04:02 PM]

Re: Hehehe, JR you are a classic
 

Tim,

I've stayed out of this thread because (a) I have no legal background whatsoever and (b) I felt that some of the posts were getting overly defensive and didn't want to contribute to anyone's angst. I don't want to be perceived as making personal attacks. So nothing in this post is intended as a personal attack, ok?

But. . . do you really think that JR's comment above is a personal attack? Honestly? Can you not see that this is intended as a humorous observation? Mr. T from the "A-Team" arguing about jewelry, and then you sign your posts as "Tee"? Don't you see the humor in that? It's in no way an attack of any kind. You claim that you are being attacked when, in my opinion, no one has attacked you at all in this whole thread. I think that you have misinterpreted some comments, and generally have missed out on the good-natured ribbing that we often give (and I more often get) on this board.

First of all, logically speaking, that's not necessarily true. It is possible in some cases to prove that something never happened. And, in fact, if we had every legal ruling that was ever made at our disposal, we could -- with a lot of effort -- prove conclusively whether or not an official has ever been found liable for injury; or whatever we're trying to discuss in this thread. (Remember, I have no legal background whatsoever!! :D )

Second of all, isn't this exactly what you have asked JR and Kelvin to do -- prove something that you claim has never happened? Please understand, this is NOT a personal attack. It's an honest question. You say that asking for proof of something that never happened is "a classic arguement by people who have no facts". But aren't you claiming that this kind of finding has never happened? So if they can't come up with the right kind of example, you assume that you "win" the argument? I don't think you can have it both ways. I may be wrong about that, but at first glance, it looks to me as if you're doing what you say JR and Kelvin shouldn't do. Nothing personal, ok?

Again, simply not true. Perhaps we think we know who you are labeling as a "big dog" and feel that person doesn't deserve to be maligned. Most of us here couldn't care less what you (or any other poster) thinks of us. But we get to know each other a little bit and might be upset when somebody bad-mouths somebody we like. Again, it's nothing personal. Just pointing out your inaccurate generalization.

Again, this doesn't prove that there never has been such a case. Just means he couldn't find it in the first 20 pages of google results. :)

Your whole what? The whole enchilada? The whole shebang? The whole truth and nothing but the truth?

It appears to me to be a place where a lot of officials come to learn and share knowledge and where other officials come and get pissed off b/c they have a chip on their shoulders. Nothing personal :(

Glad to see that you aren't caught up in ego issues. That gives your posts a lot more credibility. Nothing personal. :)

Chuck

Re: Re: Hehehe, JR you are a classic
 

Glad to see that you aren't caught up in ego issues. That gives your posts a lot more credibility. Nothing personal. :)

Chuck [/QUOTE]

I see that Mr. Tee has now removed his infamous remark. Too late Tee! Chuck has already busted you! :D

I'm sure that Nr. Tee was referring to myself and Jurassic Referee as "big dogs." If he chooses to do so, that's his choice. I could care less. I simply asked him two questions. If he considers that a personal attack, he won't last long here anyway.

And quite honestly, who cares? I haven't read any of his posts that actually add anything to a rules or case play discussion. If you don't have anything to contribute, you won't be missed. So, go back to your "whole," if that's what you wish to do. :(

Re: Hehehe, TEE(HEE) you are a classic
 

Lah me
TEE
Did you not see
the smilie?

It 'twas placed at the top of the post.It was specifically put there to denote the fact that I was just funnin'.

If you thought that that was "another personal attack",please accept my humble and heartfelt apologies.

Now you may return to your whole in the ground.We shall continue to stand for what we appear to be. In the immortal words of that great philosopher, Popeye- "I yam what I yam!".

Now go. Leave. Shoo...shoo.. :D

JR and friends
 

I am selecting to withdraw from this thread. Chuck's post has cleared many of the obstacles from my point of vision.

I have learned much about each of you by reading the indivdual posts more than once.

Take care and make sure there are no overtimes.

Tee

Hey TEE
Forget these busy BEES
Cmon with MEE
You can ref with MEE for no FEE
after the game, will have a brewsKEE!

Dude

Re: JR and friends
 

Attaboy!
Hang in and hold on, TEE.
It ain't a bad ride. ;)

Re: TEE
 

Take care and make sure that there are no extra innings,TEE.

quick thing
 

Remind me to never get on the bad side of you guys LOL



Mike

Re: All
 

Quote:

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

Without being critical, what is the purpose of these edits? Nobody wants to "claim victory"; we just want to know what our potential liability is on the court. And when we talk about the "darkside" on this board, it's usually in a good-natured way; but I don't see any indication of humor in the new posts.

Finally, and again please understand this is an HONEST QUESTION, what did you learn about yourself? Because, honestly, I haven't learned anything in this thread; it's all been very confusing to me. As I said earlier, I have no legal background, so I still have no idea if we've come to any concensus. (I just know I spelled that wrong :( )

Chuck

Chuck,did you read that NASO article on liability that I quoted? It's author was a lawyer,and I thought he made some excellent points in it.

At least that was my consensus.

I did not past the middle of page 2 of this thread because of all the legal mumbo jumbo. I will simply say if a player gets knocked cold and god forbid swallows his tongue, a tongue ring is NOT a good thing in that situation.

Not wanting to drag this one back out of the can, but . . .

From cnn.com:
Everyone's worst nightmare - the courts "correcting" a call or, worse, finding the official financially responsible (doubt this would ever hold up in a court of law, but you never know).

I remember Bob Levey (Washington Post columnist) responding to a parent who wanted video replays in a youth soccer league - 'What happens if the two dads taping the game have different angles and replays? US Appeals Courts will be forced to schedule Sunday hearings.'

After reading the posts, I think Tim came in to stir up a hornest nest and then leave.

Nevertheless, the fear of lawsuits dealing with safety issues is real and is always emphasized in meetings that I have attended in basketball and softball. ASA for softball has insurance for its members and tells them to never call an non-ASA game. Those umps have been sued.

It is very conceivable to move the legal precedent that has occured in other instances to the jewelry issue. It appears from the past posts that courts hold officials accountable legally and financially for failure to provide safety for participants when they can do so. So, it is no jump of logic that we would be liable for not knowingly enforcing the jewelry rule.

Fear is a normal emotion and the decision to have jewelry removed is a prudent and intelligent decision. Not to do it is a foolish and stupid decision. How one reacts to fear reveals a lot about oneself.

I take this issue seriously and even walked off the court in the middle of a game due to this point (it was a rec league and I lost all my games cause the powers that be did not like my decision). It's a long story but the bottom line was I was not going to leave myself open to a lawsuit.

PLease help,

What round is this bout in?

We have Mr. Tee in the home corner wearing the red(faced) trunks, and in the other corner, the rest of the reffs wearing the snow white trunks.

LEEEETTS GET READY TO RRRUUUMMMMBBBBLLLLEE!!!!!!

No maas! No maas! :p

This is the weirdest thread I have ever read, on anything.

I still think it's crazy that McDonalds lost the spilled coffee law suit. People that buy coffee know that it is hot and if you're careless enough to drop it on your lap you deserved to get burned.

The point is, people sue over anyting. And, as many people as there are that will sue of silly stuff, there are as many jurors that will sympathize with them.

Some people, rather than trying to earn their money honestly, look for any possible way to take it from someone else. Some just try to use the courts to do it...it may be legal but it doesn't make it right.

So it took you 18 months to check in on this thread, because..

I know there will be at least four people that will want to respond to this but...................

Camron posted on this thread because Camron wanted to. Does he need to get permission?

But of course! I rule around here, with an iron fist, and no one gets past me, absolutely no one. I'm surprised you hadn't figured that out yet...

I Love Australia
 

Thankfully, Australia is not as litigatious a nation as Australia, and our laws place more onus on the individual to be responsible for their well-being.

We (Australian referees) have been informed that we cannot make a player remove any jewlery that is not external or is not covered by clothing (ie tounge studs, nipple rings, belly-button rings and hmmm... more "personal" types of piercings.

Makes life easier for us Down Under...... :)

...sounds like rainmaker is the Forum's Iron Maiden! :D

I didn't notice the date. I just read whatever pops to the top of my screen. Was this there tread that someone linked to from a current tread? Maybe that's how I got there. I probably opened the link to see what they were referencing...went to a meeting...then returned to read whatever I left open without remembering how I got there.

I git it. It just surprised me to see you so "behindhand." You're usually more johnny-on-the-spot.

King: Place them in the Iron Maiden!

Bill and Ted: Excellent!

King (menacingly): And kill them!

Bill and Ted: Bogus!

Ah, for the 80's. . . :)

Ahhh...childhood memories...

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/c/scc144/nun.jpg

Hmmm, what the heck kind of memories are you. . . .

You know what? On second thought, I don't think I really want to know! :eek:

Good morning class...

Good morning class...

SHAADDDUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPP!