The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Dumbest question I've ever heard (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/56350-dumbest-question-ive-ever-heard.html)

NCASAUmp Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:41pm

Dumbest question I've ever heard
 
Somewhere, a village is missing an idiot...

Glove Shaving??? - SoftballFans.com

Gulf Coast Blue Sun Jan 10, 2010 06:25am

Bad link.

NCASAUmp Sun Jan 10, 2010 09:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue (Post 649672)
Bad link.

No, the link's good. Looks like their site is having some difficulties.

NCASAUmp Sun Jan 10, 2010 01:08pm

Link is working now.

Andy Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 649629)
Somewhere, a village is missing an idiot...

Glove Shaving??? - SoftballFans.com

Agreed...

Welpe Mon Jan 11, 2010 03:37pm

This post is a perfect look into the Beer League mentality:

"Softball is about offense baby defense is way over rated. "

7in60 Mon Jan 11, 2010 08:33pm

I wouldn't allow this because of the safety risk. I wouldn't allow a player to cut the toes off his shoes, either. Or the crot--you get the idea.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7in60 (Post 650320)
I wouldn't allow this because of the safety risk. I wouldn't allow a player to cut the toes off his shoes, either. Or the crot--you get the idea.

Okay, I have to ask. WHAT safety risk?

NCASAUmp Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 650361)
Okay, I have to ask. WHAT safety risk?

If a player modifies their equipment within the rules, they're the ones putting themselves at risk. They know how the equipment is MEANT to be worn.

Their own damn fault if they get hurt.

NDblue Fri Jan 15, 2010 06:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 650365)
If a player modifies their equipment within the rules, they're the ones putting themselves at risk. They know how the equipment is MEANT to be worn.

Their own damn fault if they get hurt.

I agree.

7in60 Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 650361)
Okay, I have to ask. WHAT safety risk?

Sprained/dislocated/broken finger from contact with ball, offensive player, fence, ground, base, etc.

IRISHMAFIA Sun Jan 17, 2010 01:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7in60 (Post 652412)
Sprained/dislocated/broken finger from contact with ball, offensive player, fence, ground, base, etc.

You're kidding, right?

The rules don't even require a glove. Besides, if the player is dumb enough to place themselves in harm's way, that is their problem.

NCASAUmp Sun Jan 17, 2010 03:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 652447)
You're kidding, right?

The rules don't even require a glove. Besides, if the player is dumb enough to place themselves in harm's way, that is their problem.

Especially when they HAVE the proper equipment, then legally cut parts off of it to make it "lighter."

That's like putting on metal cleats with no shoelaces. Have fun with that.

SethPDX Sun Jan 17, 2010 05:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 652447)
You're kidding, right?

The rules don't even require a glove. Besides, if the player is dumb enough to place themselves in harm's way, that is their problem.

I agree. And one thing that bothers me is umpires looking high and low for "issues" that aren't really an issue.

Stevetheump Sun Jan 17, 2010 06:35pm

I've been umpiring ASA since 1978 and this is the FIRST I've ever heard of this. I might bring it up at our next association meeting to see if anyone else has ever heard of this. I think doing this would increase the possibility of injury to the fielder, esp is he is attempting a "shoestring" catch and ends up trapping the ball.

SethPDX Mon Jan 18, 2010 09:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevetheump (Post 652498)
I've been umpiring ASA since 1978 and this is the FIRST I've ever heard of this. I might bring it up at our next association meeting to see if anyone else has ever heard of this. I think doing this would increase the possibility of injury to the fielder, esp is he is attempting a "shoestring" catch and ends up trapping the ball.

Perhaps, and it's his own fault if he does hurt himself.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 652999)
Perhaps, and it's his own fault if he does hurt himself.

Which is exactly why I don't worry about jewelry that is not a danger to anyone else.

Stevetheump Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:25pm

Jewelry..............
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 653004)
Which is exactly why I don't worry about jewelry that is not a danger to anyone else.

The only time I bring up jewelry is when I'm doing a girl's game. As for adults, if they want to wear it, it's up to them as long as it does not present a hazard to other players.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevetheump (Post 653017)
The only time I bring up jewelry is when I'm doing a girl's game. As for adults, if they want to wear it, it's up to them as long as it does not present a hazard to other players.

Speaking ASA, the same rule for all.

Stevetheump Sun Jan 31, 2010 07:52pm

Injuries...........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 652999)
Perhaps, and it's his own fault if he does hurt himself.

Seth - Same here with our Men's league. Most of them wear jewelry of one kind or another. Now, in ASA SP "jewelry don't play." We've discussed this at-length during our association meetings. We've come to the conclusion that players KNOW jewelry is prohibited and IF THEY CHOOSE to wear jewelry, then they accept the risk of injury. It is unfortunate, but you have to be "litigation conscious" these days when you take the field.
I had one 3 years ago. We're playing and the storm clouds are moving in. I saw a bolt of lightning and got the players off the field. We're in a delay and one player comes up to me and says: "Are you an umpire or a f**king weatherman?" I looked him straight in the eyes and said: "I am an umpire who is responsible for YOUR safety and as long as lightning is in the area, WE ARE NOT PLAYING. I probably should have ejected him for that comment, but I didn't. We ended up getting rained out.

IRISHMAFIA Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevetheump (Post 657312)
Seth - Same here with our Men's league. Most of them wear jewelry of one kind or another. Now, in ASA SP "jewelry don't play." We've discussed this at-length during our association meetings. We've come to the conclusion that players KNOW jewelry is prohibited and IF THEY CHOOSE to wear jewelry, then they accept the risk of injury. It is unfortunate, but you have to be "litigation conscious" these days when you take the field.
I had one 3 years ago. We're playing and the storm clouds are moving in. I saw a bolt of lightning and got the players off the field. We're in a delay and one player comes up to me and says: "Are you an umpire or a f**king weatherman?" I looked him straight in the eyes and said: "I am an umpire who is responsible for YOUR safety and as long as lightning is in the area, WE ARE NOT PLAYING. I probably should have ejected him for that comment, but I didn't. We ended up getting rained out.

While I agree a participant is responsible for themselves, ASA does NOT forbid jewelry in any game or level.

Stevetheump Mon Feb 01, 2010 07:48pm

Jewelry..........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 657334)
While I agree a participant is responsible for themselves, ASA does NOT forbid jewelry in any game or level.

It is left up to the umpire's judgment whether it is considered "dangerous" or not. For sure, I am NOT going to let a 13-year old wear "hoop" style/pierced earrings on to the field. If someone makes a swipe tag on her and catches that earring, it will be ripped out and she will bleed.
Again, preventive umpiring.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Feb 01, 2010 09:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevetheump (Post 657604)
It is left up to the umpire's judgment whether it is considered "dangerous" or not. For sure, I am NOT going to let a 13-year old wear "hoop" style/pierced earrings on to the field. If someone makes a swipe tag on her and catches that earring, it will be ripped out and she will bleed.
Again, preventive umpiring.

If it cannot harm another participant, I'm not worrying about it. Mama Gump was right, "stupid is as stupid does."

CecilOne Tue Feb 02, 2010 03:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 657640)
If it cannot harm another participant, I'm not worrying about it. Mama Gump was right, "stupid is as stupid does."

But doesn't the rule just say "dangerous" and not "dangerous to others"?

This year's NFHS change will add to the confusion in other rules. :rolleyes:

AtlUmpSteve Tue Feb 02, 2010 04:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 657863)
But doesn't the rule just say "dangerous" and not "dangerous to others"?

This year's NFHS change will add to the confusion in other rules. :rolleyes:

And that's how I adjust based on the level of play. I will make a youth player remove jewelry I judge dangerous to either her or others; she cannot legally make a conscious decision to assume liability for her stupidity to endanger herself, so I can be held liable.

With adults, I only make them remove that which is dangerous to others. They are legally responsible for their stupidity in that regard, and I would have minimal, if any liablility when they make an adult (albeit stupid) decision which affects only themselves.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Feb 02, 2010 06:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 657871)
And that's how I adjust based on the level of play. I will make a youth player remove jewelry I judge dangerous to either her or others; she cannot legally make a conscious decision to assume liability for her stupidity to endanger herself, so I can be held liable.

With the idiots selected for jury duty and the socialist judges on the bench, I will not disagree that you could be found liable though I would disagree with that issue.

The rule book (ASA) specifically states that I must believe the jewelry to be dangerous. I do not automatically consider jewelry dangerous because the person wearing it is under 18 yo. I also don't consider anything A PARENT allows a child to wear as dangerous since the parent did not.

Stevetheump Tue Feb 02, 2010 08:21pm

Parents...............
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 657899)
With the idiots selected for jury duty and the socialist judges on the bench, I will not disagree that you could be found liable though I would disagree with that issue.

The rule book (ASA) specifically states that I must believe the jewelry to be dangerous. I do not automatically consider jewelry dangerous because the person wearing it is under 18 yo. I also don't consider anything A PARENT allows a child to wear as dangerous since the parent did not.

Irish - Some "parents" these days SHOULDN'T BE PARENTS. What are you saying - if a "parent" allows their child to play a softball game with large, hoop earrings on, you are going to allow it?

Stevetheump Tue Feb 02, 2010 08:22pm

Good judgment call, blue...........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 657871)
And that's how I adjust based on the level of play. I will make a youth player remove jewelry I judge dangerous to either her or others; she cannot legally make a conscious decision to assume liability for her stupidity to endanger herself, so I can be held liable.

With adults, I only make them remove that which is dangerous to others. They are legally responsible for their stupidity in that regard, and I would have minimal, if any liablility when they make an adult (albeit stupid) decision which affects only themselves.

I agree completely Steve and could not have said it any better.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Feb 02, 2010 09:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevetheump (Post 657917)
Irish - Some "parents" these days SHOULDN'T BE PARENTS. What are you saying - if a "parent" allows their child to play a softball game with large, hoop earrings on, you are going to allow it?

I don't disagree, but its not up to me to determine who can or cannot have children.

But I'm not being paid to babysit. I would have to see them.

CecilOne Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 657899)
The rule book (ASA) specifically states that I must believe the jewelry to be dangerous. I do not automatically consider jewelry dangerous because the person wearing it is under 18 yo. I also don't consider anything A PARENT allows a child to wear as dangerous since the parent did not.

Does that mean you would object if an umpire is more strict about self-danger, more like HS thinking, in an ASA game under your jurisdiction?

IRISHMAFIA Wed Feb 03, 2010 05:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 658054)
Does that mean you would object if an umpire is more strict about self-danger, more like HS thinking, in an ASA game under your jurisdiction?

Not unless to the point of ridiculous like a rubber band in their hair.

BTW, in HS ball, the coach is also acting in loco parentis which makes them and the school responsible for the player and their well-being. That is why (for lack of a better term) get away with simply asking a coach is his team is properly equiped to cover much of the liability issue.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1