Uncalled Cheap Shots

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Gosh I get tired of this same meme being played over and over again.

Yes, there should have been intentionals and probably a flagrant foul called in that game. But who is to say calling 5 flagrant fouls would have stopped any player out on the court from committing "hard fouls"?

The officials have ZERO control over what the players do. ZERO. Officials can penalize properly and practice preventative officiating (which obviously was not done here), but ultimately the responsibility lies in the actions of the players.

Have to disagree partially here...we may not have control over what a player does the first time he/she does something stupid. By not calling Intentionals or Flagrants on some of these plays, we do become responsible for what the player is doing. We could have stopped play #5 from ever happening if we had taken care of business on plays 1-4.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Have to disagree partially here...we may not have control over what a player does the first time he/she does something stupid. By not calling Intentionals or Flagrants on some of these plays, we do become responsible for what the player is doing. We could have stopped play #5 from ever happening if we had taken care of business on plays 1-4.

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Tio

We do have control who plays in the game.... ejecting #34. It is up to the kids whether they want to play or sit on the bench. I believe in blowing the whistle and that the players will adjust. Or in this case foul out or get ejected.

This I completely agree with. But I'll stand up to any parent or coach out there who tries to tell me I need to get "control" over the players. That's not my job. That's the job of the players themselves.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by fiasco

This I completely agree with. But I'll stand up to any parent or coach out there who tries to tell me I need to get "control" over the players. That's not my job. That's the job of the players themselves.

True... unfortunately, in this case the fans were right.

The crew was not prepared to manage the rough play. After all, we are the only thing keeping the game fair and enforcing the rules... otherwise it is just a pickup game.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Tio

True... unfortunately, in this case the fans were right.

Which is why seeing stuff like this frustrates me as it makes your job and my job harder in the long run.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

So if the red player in play #5 had been seriously injured on that play (and you were the official in that game) this would be your defense in the lawsuit that would probably take place?

"Sorry your honor, but I don't have any control over what that player did"

Really?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So if the red player in play #5 had been seriously injured on that play (and you were the official in that game) this would be your defense in the lawsuit that would probably take place?

"Sorry your honor, but I don't have any control over what that player did"

Really?

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.

[Tio]

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.

Does it matter the validity if you have to pay legal fees to defend yourself? This is why I have a NASO policy... there are plenty of nutty parents out there who would do something like this. Make sure you are covered. For $100 a year you get legal coverage from NASO. A bargain if you ever were to need it.

[rockyroad]

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.

Ok...check out Pantalowe v. Lenape Valley Regional High School...New Jersey Superior Court. Found this one in less than 30 seconds of internet searching. Not laughable and not outlandish.

Wrestling official was named as co-defendant in a case where the wrestler was paralyzed, claiming the injury occurred because the official allowed an illegal hold to be applied and did not stop the action. Official and his insurance ended up settling before it went to trial.

In today's litigation-happy environment, you honestly believe that there are no lawyers out there who would take a case based on this video (assuming someone had been injured)?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ok...check out Pantalowe v. Lenape Valley Regional High School...New Jersey Superior Court. Found this one in less than 30 seconds of internet searching. Not laughable and not outlandish.

Wrestling official was named as co-defendant in a case where the wrestler was paralyzed, claiming the injury occurred because the official allowed an illegal hold to be applied and did not stop the action. Official and his insurance ended up settling before it went to trial.

In today's litigation-happy environment, you honestly believe that there are no lawyers out there who would take a case based on this video (assuming someone had been injured)?

Now you're just changing your argument to fit the facts you've found. Your debating skills need some work.

Your argument was not that you could find yourself in a potential lawsuit. Of course a parent can sue if they really want to. That's beside the point. Your argument was that you would not be able to successfully defend yourself in the situation brought about by the video in question.

Comparing a case where a wrestling official has the power to step in and prevent a wrestling move from taking place while its taking place is wholly different from a basketball official who stands on the sidelines and watches play unfold from 5 to sometimes up to 20 feet away. I have no control over the players' movements from that far away. I'm sorry, but I'm not fast enough (or prescient enough, even) to know when that type of "hard foul" is going to occur, meaning I can't step in and prevent it from happening, as the wrestling official could have done in the case you cited.

Back to the drawing board. Try again.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Now you're just changing your argument to fit the facts you've found. Your debating skills need some work.

Your argument was not that you could find yourself in a potential lawsuit. Of course a parent can sue if they really want to. That's beside the point. Your argument was that you would not be able to successfully defend yourself in the situation brought about by the video in question.

Comparing a case where a wrestling official has the power to step in and prevent a wrestling move from taking place while its taking place is wholly different from a basketball official who stands on the sidelines and watches play unfold from 5 to sometimes up to 20 feet away. I have no control over the players' movements from that far away. I'm sorry, but I'm not fast enough (or prescient enough, even) to know when that type of "hard foul" is going to occur, meaning I can't step in and prevent it from happening, as the wrestling official could have done in the case you cited.

Back to the drawing board. Try again.

Nope...the case revolved around the fact that the official did not properly apply the rules. It isn't a different scenario - it's the same. It's all based on the negligence of the officials because they did not properly apply the rules of the contest.

Nice try on your part, but not good enough.

You keep right on trying to make this about my debate skills. I will simply say that if you honestly believe that there is no lawyer out there who could make a case for an injured player and his family based on this video evidence, then you are sadly mistaken.

[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.

[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).

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

Nope...not looking for anything. It became apparent that you can't see the point here - that these officials did not handle these situations properly, according to the established rules - and that opens the door to claims of negligence.

So be it. You continue on, as will I.

[just another ref]

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.

In a word: bull

just my opinion