USA change 1 - inspections
 

Rule 3, Section 7C: (JO Only) All equipment that shall be inspected by the umpire is to be placed outside the dugout/bench area prior to the start of the game for pregame inspection.

Comment: Requires teams to put all equipment to be inspected by the umpires outside the dugout/bench area before the game begins.

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

IMO checking equipment is a joke ...

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.

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 ... :D

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.

I figure that will cause some confusion. :(

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.

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. :mad:

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.

yes!

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.

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'.

Let me summarize. Basically what he said was the only person affected by these waivers are those who sign the waivers and only their legal charge.

You can sign 20 waivers, but you do not have the authority to waive the legal rights of any other person or organization who may have standing to attempt to recover any level of loss especifically insurance companies.

I was working a game in a lawyers league before Bollinger stated they would cover games initially sanctioned by ASA. A team forfeited (shy 3 players), but wanted me to umpire anyway. When I questioned possible liability issues, they told me they wouldn't sue and they were lawyers so they knew better. I told them they didn't have the authority to make that guarantee. It took a few seconds, but the light bulbs went on over their head and thanked me for being there and to have a good evening. Like I said though, this was prior to Bollinger stating such an instance would continue coverage even though the official game was forfeited.

Also, anyone who has ever had third-party provided legal counsel has probably been given a recommendation to obtain separate legal counsel to cover anything in addition to what the third-party coverage may not cover

I'm going to assume that outside the dugout literally means anywhere visible and organized. That would even include outside the fence, etc. when we are trying to keep a tourney on schedule.

Do you inspect equipment and if so, for which games?

How can an umpire be liable for anything over which the umpire has no authority and no responsibility to rule one way or the other?

If a fielder's mask breaks and puts an eye out, is the umpire liable?

Of course, anyone can bring any frivolous lawsuit they want, so, the umpire can be named as a party in a lawsuit if the league schedules a game between teams of different skill levels and someone on the less skilled team gets injured.

Remove the umpire's responsibility and authority over all equipment and the liability goes with it.

I'm talking about actual liability, not the legal equivalent of the TWP or the need to defend against frivolous lawsuits.

How is UPS liable when one of their drivers damages another's property? How can a bat company be liable for a player injured because their bat hit a ball that injured another player?
How is a car mechanic liable if someone is injured by a car recently serviced by him/her?
How is regional pizza company responsible for the death of an unauthorized passenger in a delivery man's personal car when he had an accident?
Or a hotel for someone using a room as a sniper's perch? Mandalay Bay

How is ASA/USA (or any organization) responsible for any injury to player simply because it has been determined to be too good a product?

I agree that some of these may be ridiculous, but is tht is real life and apparently are considered valid legal positions.

I do, for every game. It’s not that big a deal. I chuckle when I read an umpire’s dislike of doing it. Why? It takes two or three minutes per team if they have the equipment ready for inspection. Checking it is one of the most minor of inconveniences in my games. There are plenty of other things that happen during the game that irritate me, primarily when dealing with humans. Looking at inanimate objects like bats and helmets doesn’t bother me in the least.

That said, I much prefer having the equipment outside the dugout ready for my partner(s) and me to quickly check. If a team isn’t ready, we ask them to get ready and we move to the other team or walk the field. They usually forget to have it ready, and comply with our requests by the time we return.

To me, the only pain is asking a team to get their stuff out, and they don’t because there isn’t a rule requiring it. That makes us go into the dugout and look for equipment in bags, under benches, etc. When NFHS came out with its rule last year to have teams put their equipment outside the dugout, I applauded the change. It was targeted at those a-hole coaches who didn’t want to comply with our requests.

USA Softball now comes out with a similar rule to have the equipment prepped. I think that’s a good thing as long as equipment checks by umpires continue to be required. It makes it easier for us. And believe it or not, I think it’s necessary because there are times where I do find a rattling bat or a mask missing a screw. Is it really a bad thing for the umpire to be the one who looks for and finds it? Stop being lazy and just do it.

I don't dislike it because of the time it takes. I dislike the very idea that the umpire is responsible for checking the legality of the equipment a team is using. It turns what should be the responsibility of the coach / player / parent into a cat and mouse game.

The responsibility isn't so much for discovering damaged or illegal equipment as it is for the protection of the players.

I’ve never viewed this as a legality issue. Rather, it’s simply a rules compliance issue. No different than checking the field, the game balls, the lineup cards, and the players’ uniforms. And there’s the added benefit of having a second set of eyes to check the safety of the equipment, as Irish mentioned. An umpire who doesn’t want to be bothered by playing a role in player safety should really rethink his/her responsibilities in the game, IMO.

That said, I do understand there are legality issues with the game. But they’re there regardless whether we inspect hats and bats or not. We need to protect ourselves with appropriate insurance for that purpose. Just because a bat that we didn’t look at before a game because we no longer have to by rule ends up breaking and injuring the pitcher, that’s not going to necessarily absolve us of any liability in the eyes of the pitcher’s parents. If that happened to me, I wouldn’t worry about any legal repercussions since I’m covered through NASO. But what WOULD keep me up at nights afterward is the thought that I might’ve been able to prevent it had I done a pregame bat check.

I think maybe you guys misunderstand my opinion on this.

The current rules that require an umpire inspection feeds into the "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" mentality. It becomes a game, similar to "selling" a tag or a catch to get the call.

It should be the coach / player / parent who takes responsibility for using legal equipment, and no inspection should be necessary.

My view has nothing to do with the courts or lawyers. It is putting the responsibility (ethically) where it belongs.

Do officials inspect equipment in any other sport?

Do hockey officials inspect players' helmets or the goalie's equipment? Do they inspect the sticks?

How about football? Do they inspect pads and helmets?

IDK, I don't officiate those sports. Maybe they do.

Tom, I think the disconnect is that you feel the inspections are geared to find the cheaters. That’s not the only reason we do it. We also do it (and I feel this is the overarching reason) to prevent unsafe equipment from being used. If all we were concerned with was cheating, we’d have no reason to inspect batting helmets and catcher’s helmets.

Of course parents and coaches are responsible as well, but realistically, how often do they look at the gear. I seriously doubt Mom or Dad checks before each game. And the coaches have half a dozen other things they’re doing before a game. What do we do once we get to the field? I just don’t see it as a burden. But that’s just me. I’ve been doing it long enough that it’s second nature. My mindset is not to look for cheaters. It’s to prevent potential injuries.