Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Really Camron?

Peace

[VaTerp]

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.

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

Criminal conviction is not even a remote possibility here.

The issue in a civil matter is negligence. And in many states, a plantiff in a case like this would have to prove not just negligence but that the actions of the official(s) were either reckless or willful and wanton.

Of course the complete lack of control of the game demonstrated by the officials in the video could leave themselves open to litigation. But I agree with JRut in that we are making too much of that, and do so in general in these types of discussions.

As Tomegun stated earlier, I think the focus should be on the awful job of officiating these guys did, not from a liability standpoint, but from the standpoint of officials and taking pride in doing a good, professional, and compotent job in the services that we offer.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

... the actions of the official(s) were either reckless or willful and wonton.

Great now you've got to go inject chinese food into this...who's hungry? Snaqs is buying.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

The issue in a civil matter is negligence. And in many states, a plantiff in a case like this would have to prove not just negligence but that the actions of the official(s) were either reckless or willful and wanton.

As an expert witness with 26 years experience, I will testify that there are no basketball officials in the whole world that are "reckless, willful, and wanton."
There are, however, multitudes of them that simply won't blow the whistle at appropriate times for a variety of reasons inherent to the profession.

case dismissed

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Really Camron?

Peace

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Criminal conviction is not even a remote possibility here.

The issue in a civil matter is negligence.

Never said nor implied it was. I was only pointing out that civil cases don't require the same level of proof as criminal cases.

[Brad]

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.

I think that the point people are making is about fouls that come *after* a player should have been thrown out of the game —*not just a single play.

If there was a flagrant foul (or several) in a game by a single player and the referees allowed the player to stay in the game, a case could be made for negligence by the officials.

A couple of intentional fouls might have changed the tone of the game a bit (force the coach to talk to his punk-a$$ player and tell him to back off) ... and play #5 was flagrant by any definition. It's a travesty that 34 was allowed to stay in the game after that one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

I think that the point people are making is about fouls that come *after* a player should have been thrown out of the game —*not just a single play.

If there was a flagrant foul (or several) in a game by a single player and the referees allowed the player to stay in the game, a case could be made for negligence by the officials.

A couple of intentional fouls might have changed the tone of the game a bit (force the coach to talk to his punk-a$$ player and tell him to back off) ... and play #5 was flagrant by any definition. It's a travesty that 34 was allowed to stay in the game after that one.

Well I think that would be adding stuff that we have no information on. I doubt a flagrant foul was even called. Now whether is should be is another issue, but I doubt a court is going to decide that based on this tape.

Peace