Background checks

[okla21fan]

BTW,
Texas UIL also requires a BC for HS games. I really don't see the problem with this, especially (for ASA) if there is the requirement for coaches to have them. (why would/should umpires receive a 'free pass'?)

and yes, I understand that this is no where close to fool proof. (the 'unconstitutional' dealio is something I am not aware of, would need more info)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

BTW,
if there is the requirement for coaches to have them. (why would/should umpires receive a 'free pass'?)

Big difference in constant close contact of a coach, from 90 minutes as an umpire on the same field with minimal contact, none physical.

When I was AD for a Parish and the Diocese started that for coaches, I refused. I personally knew the coaches and vouched for them, being strong Christians with a youth influencing maner was a requirement.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Big difference in constant close contact of a coach, from 90 minutes as an umpire on the same field with minimal contact, none physical.

When I was AD for a Parish and the Diocese started that for coaches, I refused. I personally knew the coaches and vouched for them, being strong Christians with a youth influencing maner was a requirement.

Catholic Diocese by any chance? irony alert

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

BTW,
Texas UIL also requires a BC for HS games. I really don't see the problem with this, especially (for ASA) if there is the requirement for coaches to have them. (why would/should umpires receive a 'free pass'?)

and yes, I understand that this is no where close to fool proof. (the 'unconstitutional' dealio is something I am not aware of, would need more info)

Problem 1 is privacy, more personal information and more copies of identifying data in the hands of more people; making it more available to identity thieves.
Problem 2 is that it is not fool proof, can provide false confidence.
Problem 3 is misinterpretation and gossip, which can harm a person's position, reputation and acceptance; often unknown to the person.
Problem 4 is that it is an "unreasonable search"; investigating someone who is not suspected, much less indicted, of anything.
Problem 5 is that it is penalizing/punishing people for other people's crimes/sins; totally anathema in a just, free society.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Oh no, now you did it!

Originally Posted by okla21fan

BTW, Texas UIL also requires a BC for HS games. I really don't see the problem with this, especially (for ASA) if there is the requirement for coaches to have them. (why would/should umpires receive a 'free pass'?)

Free pass? From what? Are you just assuming that anyone that has anything to do with youth sports has to prove innocence first?

[rant]

The umpire is the last, ABSOLUTE LAST person in question at a softball game. And the last person that should/would ever be alone with a player. So you ask who would be more likely to be alone or trusted by a child around softball?

Let's start with the parents. They are not subject to even the possibility of a BI. Then there are the park owners, ground crews, concession stand workers and the local curmudgeons that hang around the fields. And how about the teenage boys sniffing around the dugouts. Who are checking into all these peoples?

Go ahead, try going to a league, tournament or program meeting and suggest that. When you see them coming with a rail, run because it is for you. Yet, when it comes to whom a player would probably trust for a ride or escort home, all these folks would come before an umpire.

And what happens when BI are performed and someone still get "accused" (and that is all it takes to ruin one's life and family)? Same thing that happened when, in the opinion of those who think they are the keepers of EVERYONE'S moral high ground, .10 did not bring the number of arrests up to the anticipated level? The change the rules and bounced it to .08.

Well, ASA has already made that declaration. They have already stated they will now employ additional methods to dig deeper into everyone's past. And what happens when someone else who passed the more stringent BI is accused, dig even deeper? How long will it be before the point that you were caught with a beer at a HS football game when you were 18 and now you cannot come anywhere near the good children.

This sounds absolutely absurd and a few years ago, I would agree. But in today's world in this country, I no longer think it is as far-fetched as it sounds. IOW, I no longer trust people to do the just thing.

and yes, I understand that this is no where close to fool proof. (the 'unconstitutional' dealio is something I am not aware of, would need more info)

There's a constitution? Maybe you should point that out to everyone in political office and on the bench.

When it comes down to it, IMO, it is the parents' responsibility to vet anyone with whom they choose to trust their child's well being, not some softball association. If a parent is comfortable with their child being coached by a certain individual, I don't believe anyone else should have the right to judge otherwise.

BTW, this isn't about "fear" of something being found. I'm in a high-value business and had a top secret clearance in the service and have had the FBI, NIS, DIS, DOD and numerous police agencies digging through my life at one time or another. I've taken more polygraphs than there are oversize belt buckles on a Friday night at Chisolm's.

[/rant]

[NCASAUmp]

Now, even hospitals are jumping on the BI bandwagon.

Children's Hospital Screens Guests For Sex Crimes | Fox News

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Now, even hospitals are jumping on the BI bandwagon.

Children's Hospital Screens Guests For Sex Crimes | Fox News

Standard American response. The "I'd rather feel good" about something then actually doing something good Chicken Little attitude.