Can I be sued?

[Kelvin green]

running clocks and time outs dont really deal with safety or the duty of care that we all have...the litigation would need to prove that it deviated from recognized standards. A league could "waive a safety rule" and all it would do is create liability for the league and its officers because recognized standards exist..

I also believe that the courts would wonder why a league would waive a safety rule. in many negligence cases, courts deal with forseeability. if it is forseeable that there would be an injury there may be a cause of action. Allowing jewelry and resultant injury would be forseeable if allowed. (there can be a whole discussion on zone of danger/forrseeable plaintiffs/ etc)

if a league told me they were waivng a safety rule like that I'd walk away because the court would still apply a reasonable referee standard to the case...I could just see the dialogue...

how does any one explain if a person got hurt because of jewelry that it was reasonable or prudent to allow them to play in a game where bodies get tangled, where arms are swung, hands hit, bodies go the floor?

all the plaintiff has to do is convince a judge or jury that allowing the jewelry was not reasonable... if it is obvious to them you lose...and so does the league that said it was ok...

[Sharpshooternes]

So even if a knee brace comes from a manufacture and is unaltered, if it has hard metal or plastic pieces on it it should not be allowed, correct?

Just trying to reconcile this (3.5 Sit. A): "First, any equipment which, in the judgment of the referee, is dangerous to others. In this respect, elbow, wrist, hand, finger or forearm guards, casts or braces made of hard and unyielding leather, plaster, plastic, metal or any other hard substance shall always be declared illegal "even though covered with soft padding."

with this: " Knee and ankle braces which are unaltered from the manufacturer's original design are permitted and do not require any additional padding/covering."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So even if a knee brace comes from a manufacture and is unaltered, if it has hard metal or plastic pieces on it it should not be allowed, correct?

Just trying to reconcile this (3.5 Sit. A): "First, any equipment which, in the judgment of the referee, is dangerous to others. In this respect, elbow, wrist, hand, finger or forearm guards, casts or braces made of hard and unyielding leather, plaster, plastic, metal or any other hard substance shall always be declared illegal "even though covered with soft padding."

with this: " Knee and ankle braces which are unaltered from the manufacturer's original design are permitted and do not require any additional padding/covering."

The standard is different for a knee brace than it is for a brace worn on the hand or arm, for an obvious reason.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The standard is different for a knee brace than it is for a brace worn on the hand or arm, for an obvious reason.

Good point. Didn't really notice the upper/lower extremity theme. Makes sense.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Good point. Didn't really notice the upper/lower extremity theme. Makes sense.

Note that the "extra" restrictions are on the elbow and below -- not the whole arm.

Very few (real-life) restrictions on above the elbow.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Note that the "extra" restrictions are on the elbow and below -- not the whole arm.

Very few (real-life) restrictions on above the elbow.

Thank you Bob.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

running clocks and time outs dont really deal with safety or the duty of care that we all have...the litigation would need to prove that it deviated from recognized standards. A league could "waive a safety rule" and all it would do is create liability for the league and its officers because recognized standards exist..

I also believe that the courts would wonder why a league would waive a safety rule. in many negligence cases, courts deal with forseeability. if it is forseeable that there would be an injury there may be a cause of action. Allowing jewelry and resultant injury would be forseeable if allowed. (there can be a whole discussion on zone of danger/forrseeable plaintiffs/ etc)

if a league told me they were waivng a safety rule like that I'd walk away because the court would still apply a reasonable referee standard to the case...I could just see the dialogue...

how does any one explain if a person got hurt because of jewelry that it was reasonable or prudent to allow them to play in a game where bodies get tangled, where arms are swung, hands hit, bodies go the floor?

all the plaintiff has to do is convince a judge or jury that allowing the jewelry was not reasonable... if it is obvious to them you lose...and so does the league that said it was ok...

Thanks, Kelvin, that's along my thinking, but worded much better than I could have done it. I wanted to flesh that out a bit, thanks.