Uncalled Cheap Shots

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You're confusing absolute control over a person's every action with what officials generally call "controlling a game."

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I know what I have control over. In fact, one of my favorite sayings when I get some line from a coach or parent is "I can't control your players. I can only control the game."

[tomegun]

It seems like we are getting away from the fact that these officials didn't do a good job of calling these plays. None of them even had the awareness to discuss upgrading any of these fouls to intentional or flagrant. IMO and experience, there are boards/units/associations out there who have clueless "veterans" working games like this every night. Sad.

I also agree about the possibility to get sued. That is the society we are in.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I also agree about the possibility to get sued. That is the society we are in.

True. But there's a distinct difference between getting sued (which can happen to you any time you get out of bed) and being in a position where you can actually be sued successfully.

[RookieDude]

Yes...I have officiated at this school numerous times over the years.

Yes...I know the officials on this crew.

Yes...there is a lot of publicity, about this game, going around here locally and nationally.

Yes...I have been assigned this school this Friday night as Visitors at another school. (On a 3 whistle crew...I am the R. One of the officials on "the YouTube game" will be on the crew as well.)

No...I have no comment at this time.

sidenote: Today's paper shows this school is 0-6.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

True. But there's a distinct difference between getting sued (which can happen to you any time you get out of bed) and being in a position where you can actually be sued successfully.

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

True, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Yes...I have officiated at this school numerous times over the years.

Yes...I know the officials on this crew.

Yes...there is a lot of publicity, about this game, going around here locally and nationally.

Yes...I have been assigned this school this Friday night as Visitors at another school. (On a 3 whistle crew...I am the R. One of the officials on "the YouTube game" will be on the crew as well.)

No...I have no comment at this time.

sidenote: Today's paper shows this school is 0-6.

Let us know how it goes. I'm pretty interested to read how everything plays out.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Yes...I have officiated at this school numerous times over the years.

Yes...I know the officials on this crew.

Yes...there is a lot of publicity, about this game, going around here locally and nationally.

Yes...I have been assigned this school this Friday night as Visitors at another school. (On a 3 whistle crew...I am the R. One of the officials on "the YouTube game" will be on the crew as well.)

No...I have no comment at this time.

sidenote: Today's paper shows this school is 0-6.

Have fun at CB!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

This is pretty laughable. I'd like to see a case of an official being successfully sued because he/she called a common foul as opposed to an intentional/flagrant foul on a player who got injured.

Show me one, then I'll respond to your outlandish hypothetical.

That's not what he is talking about. A good argument can be made that #34 should have been tossed after play #3 in this video. Any injuries he causes after that play would therefore be at least liable for a lawsuit.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

Not to mention the very real possibility that such negligence could lead to the first guilty verdict. Whether it's happened before isn't meaningless, but it's not the debate-ending response that fiasco seems to think it is.

[JRutledge]

Players get injuries all the time in games regardless of whether we call a foul or not. A player can be injured irregardless of whether we call a foul or not. I think we overplay the importance of litigation in these discussions.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not what he is talking about. A good argument can be made that #34 should have been tossed after play #3 in this video. Any injuries he causes after that play would therefore be at least liable for a lawsuit.

A "good argument" on an Internet message board is completely and absolutely different from a good argument in court. That's what I think you and rockyroad (who is probably right now at the local law library combing through a stack of legal cases a mile high bless his heart) fail to understand.

In your opinion, a case could be made to hold the official(s) in the video liable. That's just your opinion. I've still yet to hear a compelling argument as to how the officials in the video demonstrated recklessness or willfull indifference (not by your standards, but by the court standard).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Players get injuries all the time in games regardless of whether we call a foul or not. A player can be injured irregardless of whether we call a foul or not. I think we overplay the importance of litigation in these discussions.

Peace

Not when the injury happens on play #7 at the hands of #34 with plays #1 - #6 preceding them as in this example. At some point, the officials, having not properly addressed the prior plays, will have exposed themselves to more trouble than just losing games.

It may not be enough for criminal conviction, but civil cases have a much lower threshold.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not when the injury happens on play #7 at the hands of #34 with plays #1 - #6 preceding them as in this example. At some point, the officials, having not properly addressed the prior plays, will have exposed themselves to more trouble than just losing games.

In every situation they called a foul. Now we can debate if a more punitive foul should be called, but we cannot even agree which one of those calls that should apply to. And these are just the calls, not the other situations which would have to be addressed in any court proceeding. Again I think we take the court part too far and almost none of us are lawyers or know what would happen in a hearing, let alone a trial.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It may not be enough for criminal conviction, but civil cases have a much lower threshold.

Actually, civil cases still have a pretty high threshold. The plaintiff must prove that the official or officials either acted in a reckless manner and/or willfully ignored a rule that DIRECTLY resulted in the player getting injured. Neither of those things happened in the video in question.

Could a lawsuit be filed? Sure, but I think it's more likely that the potential plaintiff's lawyer would tell their client not to bother. There's just not a case here.