Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

You can say I'm mistaken all you want, but you've still yet to prove how I'm mistaken. You've produced some article that is tangentially related, but not really. You're taking a case that is about a wrestling referee watching a player put an illegal hold on a player and recklessly allowing that particular hold to continue and trying to apply it to a situation that isn't even remotely related.

If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, you would have to compare that wrestling case to a basketball official who sees a player applying an illegal hold to a players arm, calls nothing, and then that player breaks his arm, all the while the official never blows the whistle.

Remember that an official's action has to be proven in court to be reckless or intentional to be actionable. Show me that same video where you have officials swallowing their whistles on every play and I'll agree with you.

[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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

and that opens the door to claims of negligence.

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

Stepping out of your front door opens the door to claims of negligence.

Walking into the supermarket opens the door to claims of negligence.

Having a pulse opens the door to claims of negligence.

It's just the world we live in. Nothing within this thread changes ANY of that.

Talking about "claims of negligence" and actual negligence are two completely different conversations.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Stepping out of your front door opens the door to claims of negligence.

Walking into the supermarket opens the door to claims of negligence.

Having a pulse opens the door to claims of negligence.

It's just the world we live in. Nothing within this thread changes ANY of that.

Talking about "claims of negligence" and actual negligence are two completely different conversations.

My friend told me a story about her friend skiing in NYS. She was run-over by a less-experienced skier, who was injured on the collision. My friend's friend got up with a tiny bit of pain, only to hear: "Please don't sue me, please don't sue me."

In Canada, those two people would strike up a friendship and grab a Tim's after the skiing was over.

[chseagle]

Here's a few of the comments made to the article posted in today's media source on the video:

I love the fact that people are judging play off of this video. Yes, some of the plays look bad and some are out of frustration. These types of fouls occur in basketball when you have a kid that is the size of #34 against guards like that of Highlands. The guards look like they might weigh about 150 pounds soaking wet. That is pretty close to half the size of #34. Nothing against either of team, but it is pretty easy to look at fouls in slow motion and think they look a lot worse then they actually do. Watch college ball and you will see the same thing. Replay is nice, but it also takes things way out of proportion. As for the person who uploaded the video, why would you put it on youtube if you didn't want it to be watched by all? Foul #2 the kid that came down with the rebound should have been called for traveling as well as stepping out of bounds prior to the foul being called. I thought fouls #3 and #5 looked the worst initially, but both times the ball is what he is going after, he may not have got the ball, but you are told to not allow the player to get the shot off if you are going to foul them. I have had it happen on a number of occasions. As for the coaches, I sure would hope my coach had my back in a situation similar to this. It doesn't matter if he knows things were out of hand a little bit or if he did foul out of the game, when there is a video out there singling out two of his players, he should stick up for them!! This is a team that just finished up football at a small 1A school, participants are limited especially when you have a couple would be starters who are out for a big portion of the year due to injuries sustained at the dome.

After watching that video, I'm curious about the rest of the game. It's pretty clear that there's a lot of frustration, and some of these are frustration fouls. I'm betting that it was a poorly controlled game, with a lot of pushing and shoving throughout.Second thing, particularly with the first two fouls, it looks to me like the Highland players are milking it - acting to increase the odds of a foul call. I hate that too, I think that's just as dirty.Third, #34 is big. Easily twice the size of most of the kids he fouled. Anytime there's contact with him, it's going to look bad. The smaller kid is going to bounce off and/or fall down, and he's not going to move. Add to that he doesn't look like he's much of a basketball player - out of position, lots of reaching, and not at all quick. Honestly, if I was coaching against him I'd tell my guards to go right at him, he's going to overcommit to the play and foul, we're going to get shots, and he's going to be on the bench.Both of the fouls shown by #42 were dumb, and look like frustration fouls. I think something else had probably just happened that also didn't get called, and these were retaliation plays. The first one - on the rebound - he probably felt Highland's player had just pushed him out of the way....and he had. Of course, he'd been moved by #34. The second he probably felt he'd been fouled on the steal.The kicker to both of #42's fouls though - neither should have been called. Calls should have gone against Highland before either foul, ending the play. Highland's player stepped out of bounds before the rebound foul, and another sets a moving screen before the push.I agree the officials for the game need to be looked at, but for completely different reasons.

Read more here: High school basketball video shows power of social media - Mid-Columbia News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

There have been so far a total of 14 comments made on the story.

It still gets me that the person that posted the video is now saying he made a mistake & that he had not planned for the video to get this much publicity.

I tried finding the article from ESPN but cannot find anything.

[BillyMac]

I think that I've got the "lingo" down now.

Intentional foul on play #4. A two arm push in the back of the opponent. Easy call. No question in my mind. This is not a basketball play.

Intentional foul on play #5 for excessive contact. This "clothesline" play is closest that I get to a flagrant foul. I wouldn't disagree with anyone who called this a flagrant foul, but I'm only going with intentional foul from my seat here in front of my monitor.

All the others are just "ugly" basketball. We see a lot of this in the small, rural districts that we service. Coaches need to put some "big" bodies in the game, don't have a large (numbers) male enrollment to chose from, and find that a few lineman, or linebackers, from the football team can sometimes do a pretty good job of clogging up the middle.

[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

[fiasco]

Not to mention the fact that most officials here are in agreement that only one of the fouls in question should have been called flagrant, and that foul wasn't even committed by #34. It was #42.

So, even if you call an intentional on #34 for play #1 and #3 (which almost everyone here is in agreement with), he's still eligible to play in the game.

So how are you going to argue that the officials are liable for play #5, which was committed by #34, and, in our hypothetical, injured the opposing player.

What would calling intentional fouls on #1 and #3 have done more than calling common fouls in those situations?

The answer is: not a whole lot probably, given the way #34 was playing the game.

And that's not even close to grounds to win a civil lawsuit.