USA change 1 - inspections

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is another follow-the-leader joke that just places the umpire in that much more a precarious position throughout the game.

Can you elaborate? (About the precarious position; I get the follow-the-leader comment, I think ...)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Can you elaborate? (About the precarious position; I get the follow-the-leader comment, I think ...)

Does a cheat show you his hand before cheating? If someone knows a piece of equipment isn't going to pass inspection, they probably aren't going to offer it up.

The precarious portion, IMO, is the imminent questioning of equipment during a game and liability risk should a non-inspected piece of equipment enter the game unknown to the umpire and a player is injured. Twenty years ago, I would have scoffed at the supposition I just offered, but not in today's world.

[Stat-Man]

I find it interesting USA is adding this after NFHS quickly scrapped it after just one season.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I find it interesting USA is adding this after NFHS quickly scrapped it after just one season.

Equipment checks (hats & bats) were part of the HS game for a long time, but there was no explicit requirement to have the equipment outside the dugout. I'm just glad they removed the inspection requirement...I believe the coach should bear all the responsibility and liability for ensuring players are legally and properly equipped. If only umpires were required to ask the head coach before each game ...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Equipment checks (hats & bats) were part of the HS game for a long time, but there was no explicit requirement to have the equipment outside the dugout. I'm just glad they removed the inspection requirement...I believe the coach should bear all the responsibility and liability for ensuring players are legally and properly equipped. If only umpires were required to ask the head coach before each game ...

You cannot compare NFHS to any other association on this matter. Liability assignment isn't close.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You cannot compare NFHS to any other association on this matter. Liability assignment isn't close.

I wish I understood why this was. Whether it's a rec-level club team, a high school team, or a D1 NCAA team, everyone (including the officials) is there because they (or their parent/guardian) choose to be. If a participant is injured while playing legally, that is a risk they *should* be willing to assume in exchange for participation. If anyone chooses to cheat, and a game participant is injured due to that cheating, the cheater *should* be liable, as should the head coach of that team, they the players are minors.

I started working HS wrestling last year...and I was on the mat for a gruesome injury when a JV wrestler broke his arm in three places. At no point was I concerned that I would somehow be accused of being liable for his injury. I wish this was the case in softball. IMO, with some obvious exceptions, at no point should an official of any sport be liable for the actions or consequences of the choices that game participants make.

I know this is not the world we live in, though. It doesn't mean I like it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I wish I understood why this was. Whether it's a rec-level club team, a high school team, or a D1 NCAA team, everyone (including the officials) is there because they (or their parent/guardian) choose to be. If a participant is injured while playing legally, that is a risk they *should* be willing to assume in exchange for participation. If anyone chooses to cheat, and a game participant is injured due to that cheating, the cheater *should* be liable, as should the head coach of that team, they the players are minors.

I started working HS wrestling last year...and I was on the mat for a gruesome injury when a JV wrestler broke his arm in three places. At no point was I concerned that I would somehow be accused of being liable for his injury. I wish this was the case in softball. IMO, with some obvious exceptions, at no point should an official of any sport be liable for the actions or consequences of the choices that game participants make.

I know this is not the world we live in, though. It doesn't mean I like it.

In HS, the coaches are employees with the same liability and authority status of a teacher. HS events are an extension of the classroom. An incident during HS athletic event would be handled the same as a similar event in the classroom. There is no question of authority, the HS is responsible for the athlete and coaching staff and should cover any issue involving liability.

In ASA/USA, U-Trip, NSA, PGF, etc. the coach doesn't carry the same legal authority as that of a HS teacher or coach and would be open to a wide range of issues involving liability should the be an issue involving injury to a player or another coach.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I find it interesting USA is adding this after NFHS quickly scrapped it after just one season.

I figure that will cause some confusion.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I figure that will cause some confusion.

I don't know the exact percentage, but I've always considered NFHS & USA to be about 95% the same. So we're already having "some confusion". Some of our guys consistently mess up the games they're working because they forget which hat they have on.

Heck, we can't even get some of our officials to wear the correct color t-shirt under their powder blue shirt. (NH wants navy shirt under powder blue; USA wants white under powder blue.) Then there are the outliers who show up with either red or green t-shirts under powder blue.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Does a cheat show you his hand before cheating? If someone knows a piece of equipment isn't going to pass inspection, they probably aren't going to offer it up.

Such a cheat can also hide the bat during in-dugout inspections, too.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The precarious portion, IMO, is the imminent questioning of equipment during a game and liability risk should a non-inspected piece of equipment enter the game unknown to the umpire and a player is injured. Twenty years ago, I would have scoffed at the supposition I just offered, but not in today's world.

You don't protect yourself from this with an inspection anyway.

Here's a radical suggestion for youth fastpitch: remove detection of illegal equipment from the umpire's responsibility altogether. Make it purely the coach's / parent's / player's responsibility. Opposing coaches can protest if they want the gear inspected; umpires stay out of it. IOW, treat it like player eligibility.

[3afan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

...
Here's a radical suggestion for youth fastpitch: remove detection of illegal equipment from the umpire's responsibility altogether. Make it purely the coach's / parent's / player's responsibility. Opposing coaches can protest if they want the gear inspected; umpires stay out of it. IOW, treat it like player eligibility.

yes!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Such a cheat can also hide the bat during in-dugout inspections, too.

You don't protect yourself from this with an inspection anyway.

Here's a radical suggestion for youth fastpitch: remove detection of illegal equipment from the umpire's responsibility altogether. Make it purely the coach's / parent's / player's responsibility. Opposing coaches can protest if they want the gear inspected; umpires stay out of it. IOW, treat it like player eligibility.

Because, whether we like it or not, the game official will always be near the top of list of any litigation and there is no one who can prevent it.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Because, whether we like it or not, the game official will always be near the top of list of any litigation and there is no one who can prevent it.

A properly written participation waiver would be a good start. While it's not a get-out-of-liability-free card, it's a binding document for the participants and their parental units. Unfortunately, very few organizations consider this problem from the official's point of view. It's not that there's no one who could prevent it...but I hear what you are saying.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

A properly written participation waiver would be a good start. While it's not a get-out-of-liability-free card, it's a binding document for the participants and their parental units. Unfortunately, very few organizations consider this problem from the official's point of view. It's not that there's no one who could prevent it...but I hear what you are saying.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Actually, such a waiver provides zero protection from litigation

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

A properly written participation waiver would be a good start. While it's not a get-out-of-liability-free card, it's a binding document for the participants and their parental units. Unfortunately, very few organizations consider this problem from the official's point of view. It's not that there's no one who could prevent it...but I hear what you are saying.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, such a waiver provides zero protection from litigation

Let me elaborate based on what I've been advised; in some cases, same sources as IrishMafia.

The ASA roster document has long included waiver language; written, vetted, approved, by the legal counsel, the risk management teams for the insurors, brokers, and agents. However, the reality borne out of claims, actual lawsuits, judgments and settlements based on the foregoing have the following conclusions:

1) Waivers signed by adults for themselves (playing on an adult team) can generally successfully stand muster. The small areas where they might not are mostly limited to gross negligence (not only was the defendant liable, but knowingly did so with total disregard of the potential results; kind of like proving "intentional") or where the document may be unclear (always broadly construed against the author where/when unclear in any specific instance).

2) Waivers signed by adults as guardians for minors most generally can stop that adult from successfully pursuing legal action as the guardian. Same general exceptions as #1.

3) Waivers signed by adults as guardians for minors most generally DO NOT preclude the minor from pursuing legal remedies, either thru a guardian ad litem, or once they reach the legal age. It is an overriding legal principle that parents and guardians cannot waive the legal rights of the minor, even while signing as the legally responsible party.

4) This is America; anyone can sue anyone, even where there are no legal principles in support. And there will be costs and expenses to defend against even the most frivolous cases. In my opinion, anyone that officiates any sport at any level is foolish to not have insurance that includes legal defense costs; I am a strong supporter of NASO membership if for no other reason than that alone. Yes, your USA, USSSA, state high school association, etc. registration will cover you in many/most instances, BUT, there is nothing similar for collegiate and many other situations (yes, I know the USA supplemental covers a lot of that gap, but, not all, and not everyone has access to that.

Depending on your USA local association's set fees, many/most of us can get NASO (including Referee magazine) for almost the same as USA registration plus the supplemental. And NASO covers every sanction of every sport .....

Just sayin'.