Player A56 attempts to come into the game with a cast that is properly padded but he does not have a Doctor's written note. Crew won't allow him to play because he doesn't have a note.

A56 goes to the sideline and tells the trainer to cut the cast off. Against her STRONG medical advice, she cuts the cast off.

Do you allow A56 to play?

I'd appreciate any case book support or rule reference that can be provided.

Thanks!

2003 case book page 86 .OFFICIALS CODE OF ETHICS. Officials shall, while enforcing the rules of play, remain aware of the inherent risk of injury that competition poses to student-athletes. Where appropiate,they shall inform event management of conditions or situations that appear unreasonably hazardous.

As outrageous as it sounds, there are players and parents who would do something idiotic as removing a cast along a sideline instead of in a Medical facility.

If the player is wearing no illegal equipment there is nothing we can rule on to say that the player can't play. The coach would be the one who shouldn't allow this player to play but you never know.

I'm not coming up with the actual rule number but it says that if an act is not prohibited by rule then it is legal.

As officials we have no coverage to disallow injured players from playing unless we can say he was unconcience or is still bleeding or still has blood on him.

There are no precise rules in the book for stupidity.

According to the rules the umpire is the final authority on legality of equipment which includes casting and according to 1-5-3c must have written direction by a physician. And keep the note for liability purposes.

Therefore, the person cannot become a player for the entire game.

If the person attempts to become a player it is an unsportsmanlike on the head coach who has vouched for the legality of player equipment. And, the person can still not become a player.

You might try to extend 3-5-10b -- the unconscious player rule to apply to this moron who while conscious in the physical sense is unconscious in the mental sense.

Bottom line, there is no way he gets on the field.

I DISAGREE. While specific rule coverage is not provided our mission on the field for every game is the safety of the players.

We can never allow a player to put himself in harm's way.

I am positive in a case such as this every rule interpreter would stand behind you if you refused to allow this player in the game.

could this fall under the referees elastic power to cover on something not directly covered by the rules. Even though I would not want to deal with this situation.

Anyone consider LIABILITY?? If you knowingly allow this to happen, you have high exposure.

The consequences of not allowing the player to enter are minimal compared to potential liability if you do allow the entry. Don't anyone tell me we are covered with liability insurance. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean you are doing the right thing.

As for me, you aren't playing!

No way is that player ever going to get to play on that day! When he becomes more seriously injured because you let him play, the first thing any lawyer worth his salt is going to point out is that you knew he had a broken arm, no Dr's note, and you still allowed him to play. If not allowing him to play is in error, then you have erred on the side of safety, which is the correct thing to do!

Whenever you err on the side of safety, even if you are wrong, you are right!

I NEVER touch an injured player. There are trainers and coaches for this. I don't foresee any injury that I could attend to that couldn't wait till the trainer gets on the field.

Don't be a hero. Be wise.

I have to agree, no way he gets on the field. He tried to get in the ball game improperly to begin with, then he removes the one thing to protect him at all. If I'm a lawyer I am sueing the game officials, coaches, and school for letting the kid play and getting hurt more seriously (which he will do undoubtedly). Remember this too, it is not his right to play.