|
Wed Sep 21, 2005, 09:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I just read a small blurb about this in the Charlotte Observer, and then found this more detailed article from the Cincinnati Enquirer.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...387/1074/SPT03 The officials were put in a tough situation on this one. Unfortunately, this caused embarrassment for the player as well. The logical step of getting a state waiver was finally done, but probably should have been done before the season. Here is another article about the player, Bobby Martin. http://www.daytondailynews.com/sport.../0916arch.html A great story about what sounds like a great kid. 
|
|
Wed Sep 21, 2005, 01:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
we had that happen with a kid in warner robins, ga. the state acted quickly with the waiver and informed all of us before the season started. the last thing they wanted was the media reporting that we did not let a physically challenged kid play because he violated rule 1 (not wearing shoes).
i heard someone say he could have played without the waiver it he tied his shoes to him somewhere. the rule, as far as i know, does not say the shoes have to be on your feet.
|
|
Wed Sep 21, 2005, 02:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wouldn't allow any player to just tie shoes around his waist and I think the rule book backs me up. Specifically, the terms "properly fitted equipment" and "Shoes shall be made of a material that covers the foot"
If it doesn't cover the foot, then it's not a shoe according to the NFHS rules of football. SECTION 5 PLAYER EQUIPMENT ART. 1 . . . Mandatory equipment. Each player shall participate while wearing the following pieces of properly fitted equipment, which shall be professionally manufactured and not altered to decrease protection: Section f. Shoes shall be made of a material which covers the foot (canvas, leather or synthetic) attached to a firm sole of leather, rubber or composition material which may have cleats or which may be cleatless. Among the items which do not meet these requirements are gymnastic slippers, tennis shoes cut so protection is reduced, ski and logger boots and other apparel not intended for football use.
|
|
Thu Sep 22, 2005, 02:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree it is a unique situation. However, to base the decision to not let the kid play on the uniform is utterly ridiculous. They should be ashamed. The fact that he didn't have a waiver would have been enough. Likewise, if you don't have a foot, you don't need a shoe. Seems like a too literal reading of the rule book to me.
|
|
Thu Sep 22, 2005, 03:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
This was discussed on another board. The AD and coach had since August when practice started to clarify this issue with the state association. It is unfare to spring this on the crew at game time. Same with an electronic ankle braclet or any other very unusual circumstances. There was no excuse for the school not to have had this resolved prior to the game.
|
|
Fri Sep 23, 2005, 01:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The crew erred. Should have used common sense and let him play. From USA Today
Football player without legs eligible to play DAYTON, Ohio (AP) Game officials made a mistake when they kept a high school football player who has no legs from playing last week, the Ohio High School Athletic Association said. Bobby Martin, a senior at Colonel White High School in Dayton who was born without legs, was told at halftime of Friday's game at Mount Healthy High School in Cincinnati that he could not finish the game. The officials said Martin was violating a rule that requires players to wear shoes, thigh pads and knee pads. Martin had played in his team's previous three games as a member of the punt return squad, using his arms to move down the field. "The officials erred, but they erred on the side of caution," said Bob Goldring, an assistant commissioner with the OHSAA. "They did not want to see him get hurt." A doctor had cleared Martin to play before the season started, Goldring said. However, the athletic association was unaware of Martin's participation on the team until Monday, when administrators at Dayton Public Schools contacted commissioners to complain about the way Martin was treated in Cincinnati. Goldring said the association planned to send a letter Tuesday to the Dayton school district that reaffirms Martin's eligibility. Colonel White coaches can present the letter to future game opponents or officials who might question Martin's participation, he said. Martin said the episode left him perplexed. "It's the first time in my life I ever felt like that," said Martin, whose team lost to Mount Healthy 41-12. "Everybody was looking at me, talking about what I didn't have. I felt like a clown. I hated it. I just wanted to know why it was different this game than all the rest." Carolyn Woodley, the athletic director at Colonel White, said sometimes common sense has to prevail. "The doctors have said it's OK for Bobby to play, so have his parents, and he has the necessary grades. That's all he needs," Woodley said. __
|
|
Fri Sep 23, 2005, 01:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
TXMike,
I don't think the crew errored in enforcing the rules. It is not in their authority to suspend rules or sections of the rules so a player can participate. Any decison on making exceptions for special needs needed to be made at a higher level. The coach and AD errored in not clearing this with the state prior to the game.
|
|
Fri Sep 23, 2005, 04:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is everyone's responsibility in enforcing the rules to use common sense. None of us should enforce the rules to the letter. We need to enforce the rules understanding the intent. In this case they ignored the intent of the required equipment rule and decided to apply the rule literally. Why they did that is beyond me. Only they know. Was it because they felt it was their duty to "protect the kid" ? Was it because they did not want thye "spectacle" of a legless player on the field? Was it because they just wanted to "act with authority" ?
|
|
Fri Sep 23, 2005, 05:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm all about being fair, neutral and unbiased and can completely understand the reasoning behind this young man desiring to be on the feild with his brethren but...
C'mon now, we're talking football here and they place this young man on the "punt return" squad? My only source is what I've read on this thread as well so, what was his role? Did he block and how? Was it above or below the waist? Was he merely "on the field" during the play and was he fully expected to compete with the other players? How could a gunner be expected to hit this young man? I couldn't. And what about in a few months??? Will he be point guard or posting up on the varsity basketball squad as well? Title 9 is a big part of my life since I have 2 daughters who went to college on VB scholarships. But I would never allow my daughter to play on a mens team. Right or wrong, I simply wouldn't. Same with this young man. I wouldn't want him to compete on the field, one for his safety and two because it isn't fair to him OR others. My nephew/god son has spinal bifada(?) and is confined primarily to a wheel chair but can walk for short periods. Hazed and razed in school he finally found his "spot" with wheel chair basketball and competitive racing in his chair. Now he'll be graduating HS and he has never once missed playing sports with the other "normal" kids. He'd tell you he loves what he does. He has found his place and is extremely happy and proud of all his medals and accomplishments. They are no different than the accomplishments of a fully-abled person either. I won't even go into my family's efforts with the Special Olympics and those young kids and adults. Should they be allowed to run on the punt return as well? If they tried to make a block do you just allow them to take you out of the play or do you hammer them just as hard as a fully-abled person? Again, I couldn't but maybe others could hit them hard and sleep well at night. My nephew is a great young man as well but I wouldn't want to see him geared up on a varsity football field just because he wanted to compete on "the same level". He'd could get seriously hurt since he can't run normally, and this young man from Ohio could as well. Then what about the player who puts the hit on him? I respect his dreams, goals and desires but there are some things which will always be out of reach. Hate to be negative on such an inspiring story but where does it end? My hat's off to all involved and I wish this young man well. No doubt he'll go on to accomplish great things. Congrats to you son. Keep the Faith. WM
|
|
Fri Sep 23, 2005, 09:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just putting this out there...
Is there a Disabilities Act that might cover this? I say let him play. I would think that the requirement to having to wear knee pads is for player safety. If one does not have knees, how can one be expected to protect them?
__________________
Pope Francis
|
|
Sun Sep 25, 2005, 07:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
WM
|
|
Sun Sep 25, 2005, 07:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
#1 - there is no "right" to tryout for the NFL. The ADA does provide some rights for disabled folks but tryng out for the NFL is not one.
Besides, this is not about rights unless you are seeing it as in your "power" to decide who plays and who doesn't. Your role is to officiate the game. The role of parents, doctors, and school staffs is to decide who should play. If they say yes then you are being somewhat Napoleonic by trying to assert your "authority" over the process.
|
|
Sun Sep 25, 2005, 07:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Editorial from Today's Cincinnati Enquirer....
Ohio high school insider Vilifying game officials unfair By Tom Groeschen Enquirer staff writer As usual, everyone is blaming the officials. Frankly, that's just not right. We speak of the Bobby Martin affair, which made national news last week. Martin, a senior football player at Dayton Colonel White who was born without legs, was told at halftime of a Sept. 16 game at Mount Healthy that he could not finish the game. Game officials decided it was unsafe for Martin to be on the field, citing a mandatory equipment rule that players must wear shoes, thigh pads and knee pads. The resulting firestorm has made Martin a celebrity and the game officials villains. USA Today, ESPN, CNN and Good Morning America all jumped aboard, along with the Cincinnati and Dayton media. Martin's story indeed is inspirational, and we applaud him. We can only imagine what he has gone through in his life. But what about the officials? They've gotten killed on the airwaves and in print, while Cincinnati-based Dennis Daly - the crew chief for the game - has declined comment. "I don't know what I'd have done," said Bob Sagers Sr., a Cincinnati crew chief who has officiated for 44 years. "There's nothing in the rulebook for this situation. I don't know what I'd have done unless I'd actually been there." Most of us were not there, but that hasn't stopped some from being judge, jury and executioner. "The vilification of these officials is very unfair," said Kyle McNeely, an official for 25 years. "In their minds they didn't know what to do, and they were really trying to protect the kid. What if he gets hurt, and then they're in court with a lawsuit." McNeely is rules interpreter for the Butler County Football Officials Association. He said there is nothing in the OHSAA rulebook to account for Martin's situation, although you can bet next year's edition will be updated. As we now know, Martin played in three previous games in Dayton this season. This was Colonel White's first trip to Cincinnati this year, and here's what should have happened: The school should have contacted the Ohio High School Athletic Association before the season to explain the situation and receive a blanket waiver for Martin. Copies of the waiver should have been e-mailed in advance to opponents and officials. But that apparently didn't happen, which is why we have this mess. "Officials do this for two reasons," McNeely said. "A love for the sport, and a huge desire for the kids to gain what they have in the past from the game. If this player courageously wants to play the game, why didn't they check with the OHSAA and get it worked out beforehand?" By the way, officials make $50 per game. "We don't get paid much money, and we take a lot of abuse," McNeely said. "You've got a very unusual experience here. Our primary concern deals with the safety and welfare of the kids. I know those guys were trying to do the right thing." Keep that in mind, especially if you read or hear any more about how the officials "erred." And let's celebrate what this really is, a courageous youngster who just wants to play ball.
|
|
Sun Sep 25, 2005, 10:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
My prior post about the young man playing football wasn't written as an "official" but, rather than as a Dad and a Father. My son wasn't into team sports, but outdoor extreme activities. My two daughters played highly competitive VB. My nephew was and is a wheelchair athlete, and a damn good one at that! My reply to your quip about the NFL is this: As a business owner I was held to many Local, State and Federal regulations regarding hiring and firing, benefits, EEOC, and ADA among others. I'm in the insurance profession as well so know about wrongful termination cases, workplace harassment and discriminatory practices. The NFL is no different than any other "employer" hiring employee's or contracting independent contractors. The NFL is a business and is run as such. In addition there has been a multitude of wrongful death lawsuits, contract disputes, etc in the NFL. It is only a matter of time before a case comes before the 9th District Court for a matter of EEOC or ADA breaches. Think the NFL doesn't build it's locker rooms in accordance with ADA codes??? Think the venerable Reverend Jesse Jackson didn't pressure and push the Racial Button to get black coaches and quarterbacks into key positions??? Never, ever think any business, let alone the NFL, is above or out of reach of any discriminatory lawsuit - ADA or otherwise. This is America where you can sue over your coffee being too hot - AND WIN!!! The ACLU protects the "rights" of pedophiles being able to hang out in the childrens parks. NAMBLA is protected under the 1st Amendment according to the ACLU as well. If they, or another special interest group decided to push an NFL discriminatory issue, I'll guarantee it'll be heard around the World. If I were an official working that particular game, I'd have made it clear he could play if he wanted to. As a Dad I wouldn't. So don't confuse me with some 'napoleonic' issue you may have. WM
|
|
Mon Sep 26, 2005, 12:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think we are being too kind to the officials in this case. My understanding of this situation is that they let the young man play the first half and then told him at half time that he couldn't play. If that is true then it's pretty clear that the officials searched the rule book for a way to get the player out of the game. Likewise, if it did happen this way, there should have been a penalty against the head coach for USC for equiptment. What are the odds that they did that. I'd say slim to none.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
