protocol questions

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I honestly think USA Softball would do itself a favor and either allow jewelry just like NCAA, or completely disallow it just like NFHS. Or maybe compromise and allow it for 14U and higher, similar to the metal cleats rule.

Unfortunately with the way it is now, players don't have a clue what to do with their jewelry from one game to the next when they play in a weekend tournament or showcase. This sort of inconsistency amongst umpires makes us look like we can't get on the same sheet of music.

As for protection from litigation when it comes to "the golden question", don't let that fool you. I've read where umpires are part of a lawsuit in youth baseball when a player gets hurt by a batted ball just because the parents felt the bat used was too dangerous. It didn't matter that umpires inspected it before the game and found it perfectly legal, nor did it matter that the PU asked "the golden question" at the plate conference. After the injury, the parents would sue the bat manufacturer, the parent organization of the league, the league itself, the parents and coaches of the kid who hit the ball, and the umpires.

And I believe that would be a bad decision for USA Softball, which has participants from 6U to Senior Softball. Neither rule would appropriately address all the participants from 6 to 80, and would ultimately likely increase the liability and insurance costs for USA umpires and participants.

Yes, as several have repeated throughout this thread, anyone can sue anyone. But when there are solid legal fundamentals and precedents in support, it is extremely rare that these shotgun style suits secure anything from the umpires; the insuror may throw a few thousand as a settlement to be dismissed and avoid legal fees, but, except in the rare extremes of ridiculousness or actual negligence, the umpires are dismissed. And you are covered for those legal fees (and settlements) in the USA Softball umpire insurance; and/or NASO, in fact.

The NCAA rule (actually the lack of one) is based on the premise that these student-athletes are adults. What they do or don't do to protect or endanger themselves is a matter of personal accountability. The NCAA, the schools, even the umpires are basically not ever going to be liable for those decisions, absent gross negligence.

The NFHS rule is premised on legally protecting the schools, who are legally liable for the minors in their care. Who/what is the NFHS? A federation of state associations that represent whom? The schools. Not the officials/umpires nor the students, even. The best protection for the schools is an absolute ban. No judgments by anyone.

USA umpires are granted the latitude to adjust to an adult game (which NFHS never has) or a youth game (which NCAA never has). Because the judgment is authorized and supported in the rules, it isn't a matter of liability unless the umpire makes NO judgment, or is grossly (generally meaning with intent to be) negligent.

There will always be someone that wants everything to be black or white, and never a shade of gray. Yet a game with participants from 6 to 80 just cannot have one absolute rule that is appropriate to every level. So, this is what we paid the big bucks to decide; and it may be different from game to game.