I hate to say I told you guys so...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I'm curious as to why, in your perspective, putting at least an onus of responsibility on the coaches (especially in JO), in writing and by rule, is a waste of time and effort? It takes 1 second to ask them.

Doubtless its been brought up in OKC before.. what are the real arguments against it?

It is all about insurance.

As Steve noted, this is a school function and the coach is their agent. Like an accident in a science class, an injury in a gym class (if they still have these) or an accident in the cafeteria, whatever happens during a HS game is the responsibility of the child's school. By law, the school whether self-insured, covered by a district or statewide policy, is responsible for any issues involving the student.

This is not true outside of that realm. The coach can say a player is properly equiped and all is safe and legal, but has no legal standing in making such a statement as in this case, the insurance is held by either the league, team, parents or all of the above. The coach cannot speak for anyone, but himself.

It is much like an umpire working a non-sanctioned game and being told that they will not be held liable. Problem is, these folks do NOT have the authority to waive the rights of their insurance company. If a player is hurt during a situation like this, the moment they present an insurance card or other type of coverage to anyone, that insurance company has every right to attempt to recoup their monies should they find someone else may be responsible for the injury. As you know, being a figure of authority on that field, the umpire will be the first scrutinized.

Due diligence in a pregame check plus a coach affirming his equipment is legal.. that seems about as solid as you can get.

Due dililgence in a pregame check is the plus, however, the coach's affirmation is useless which is why the due diligence cannot be discarded.

The additional bonus would be they would know they are responsible.

Well, you may get them to believe they are responsible, but that doesn't make it so

That said, its not JO where you run into the problems, its the mens games.

Not necesssarily true. While you may not have as many bat issues in JO, there are still issues with helmets and facemasks. With the advent of territorial Nationals in ASA, more teams that previously would not attempt to play to this level are attending these tournaments.

As we all know, many play the game under other sanctioning bodies or at the local ASA level where some of the "due diligence" on equipment is not performed in a close manner or is overlooked. The teams still show up with a catcher's helmet with no ear flaps, batter's helmets with no chin straps or face masks that do not have a NOCSAE stamp/sticker on it or is not securely fastened to the helmet. These issues are just as important as the illegal/altered bats. Luckily, it is getting better every year.

I've heard rumor that the mens FP in our area have left ASA and gone to AFA, so it may be a non issue anyway.. can't say I'm really sorry to see them go either.

Maybe, but the issue will be the same with AFA as it would be with any other sanctioning body.

[Dakota]

It is not the speech that "makes" the coach responsible, it is in the stated rules for NFHS as to who is responsible for ensuring the players are using legal equipment... coach, player, and parents. It is stated directly in NFHS Rule 5-1.

However, this rule also states that the umpire has "the duty and the right to inspect equipment", so the umpire's pre-game equipment inspection is not just a courtesy. It is a duty.

[wadeintothem]

Fair enough steve and mike, if the lawyers have said it don't mean squat, then that pretty much sums it up and would make sense as to why ASA does not do it.

Thanks.