Author Topic: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior  (Read 6801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3205
  • FAN REACTION: +126/-29
Re: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2017, 06:56:08 PM »
We'll see how that worked on Nov. 25.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2017, 07:51:38 PM »
We'll see how that worked on Nov. 25.
How about the first Saturday in September? Any stadium. Anywhere.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 4665
  • FAN REACTION: +190/-189
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2017, 08:58:47 PM »
Two things:
1)  Very annoying how the media makes it seem like this is something exclusively initiated by the officiating community, and that the rule was added/changed by the officiating community.  No mention of the fact that the Rules Committee - made up of coaches and administrators - are the ones responsible for initiating and changing the rule.  While the officiating community is fully supportive of the rule change and added emphasis on this issue, the Rules Committee is responsible for this.  Rather than interviewing Bill Carollo, they should be interviewing Larry Fedora, or any of the other members of the Rules Committee.  These types of reports makes the officiating community look like the bad guys, trying to impose their will on the coaches, and deflecting the responsibility from the Committee.

2). The argument that the coach was trying to get a better view of the next down/distance is no excuse at all.  If his team was in full compliance with the rules, his players would be 12' off the field, and he could move freely in the area 6' to 12' off the sideline.  He could get as good of look as he needs, while in that area, and he would be immune to any penalty for incidental contact with an official.  In truth, there is no real need for the coach to be in the restricted area, at all.  Leniency with being in that area is OK, up to the point of contact, of any kind.  It is a real safety issue.  Just ask the San Antonio Chapter of TASO, or the family of the coach that eventually died from a collision with an official, while the coach was in the restricted area.  That could have just as easily been the official.  A tragedy, either way.  A totally avoidable tragedy if the teams will comply with the rules.

Robert
« Last Edit: August 05, 2017, 11:00:08 PM by ElvisLives »

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2017, 07:06:35 AM »
Two things:
1)  Very annoying how the media makes it seem like this is something exclusively initiated by the officiating community, and that the rule was added/changed by the officiating community.  No mention of the fact that the Rules Committee - made up of coaches and administrators - are the ones responsible for initiating and changing the rule.  While the officiating community is fully supportive of the rule change and added emphasis on this issue, the Rules Committee is responsible for this.  Rather than interviewing Bill Carollo, they should be interviewing Larry Fedora, or any of the other members of the Rules Committee.  These types of reports makes the officiating community look like the bad guys, trying to impose their will on the coaches, and deflecting the responsibility from the Committee.

2). The argument that the coach was trying to get a better view of the next down/distance is no excuse at all.  If his team was in full compliance with the rules, his players would be 12' off the field, and he could move freely in the area 6' to 12' off the sideline.  He could get as good of look as he needs, while in that area, and he would be immune to any penalty for incidental contact with an official.  In truth, there is no real need for the coach to be in the restricted area, at all.  Leniency with being in that area is OK, up to the point of contact, of any kind.  It is a real safety issue.  Just ask the San Antonio Chapter of TASO, or the family of the coach that eventually died from a collision with an official, while the coach was in the restricted area.  That could have just as easily been the official.  A tragedy, either way.  A totally avoidable tragedy if the teams will comply with the rules.

Robert
And IF the officials enforce the rules. And IF the conferences and supervisors back the officials. Lots of "IFs." Talk is cheap. Let's see what happens when the rubber meets the road.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline TexDoc

  • *
  • Posts: 1861
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-26
Re: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2017, 07:41:15 AM »
We all need to be reminded on what can happen on the sidelines.

First Story:

By Andrew Cohen
May 27, 2009

An inadvertent collision on a football sideline that led to a coach's brain injury is, five years later, still causing all sorts of headaches for a regional association of officials and the national organization that oversees them.

In 2004, working a football game between Fox Tech and Brackenridge high schools in San Antonio, Texas, Charles Harpole, one of a team of five officials, was running down a 6-foot-wide swath in front of the Brackenridge bench that is supposed to be kept clear for officials trailing a play. Running full speed upfield, Harpole collided with an assistant coach, Terry English, knocking both unconscious. Harpole recovered fully from the incident and has since returned to officiating, while English was left with impaired memory and was forced to retire from teaching and coaching.

Since the accident, the two have become friends, and English reportedly harbors no ill will toward Harpole. However, in 2006, the coach's insurance carrier, Midwest Employers Casualty (from whom English collected worker's compensation benefits), sued Harpole, the team of officials and the Texas Association of Sports Officials (TASO), claiming their negligence caused English's injuries. Midwest argued that the officials failed to enforce a rule that bars coaches from standing in the sideline area where English was injured and that English was not warned to stay out of the officials' box, among other claims. TASO was severed from the original suit, and the officiating crew won a summary judgment in trial court, but Midwest has appealed the verdict to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio.

An amicus curiae brief filed in April by the National Association of Sports Officials pointed out that Harpole was doing exactly what an official is supposed to be doing. In the event that the trial court's verdict were overturned, NASO added, "nearly all of [NASO's] members do now or will in the future face the prospect of tort litigation concerning any sideline collision, or indeed any collision with a wayward coach, substitute player, athletic trainer, team physician, school employee, security officer, spectator or any other person who may be in close proximity to a sideline at an athletic event."


Second Story:
On June 9th, a Bexar County District Judge in Austin, TX issued a Judgment awarding over $400,000 in sanctions and fees against a Plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit that named five Texas football officials. 

The lawsuit stems from an injury suffered by a high school football coach, Terry English, during a football game at Brackenridge High School in 2004.  During the course of a play, Coach English stepped onto the field and in front of an official who was running down the sideline.  The men collided and Coach English suffered serious brain injuries.   

 Midwest Casualty, an out-of-state insurance company, who had to pay for Coach English’s health care costs, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the five high school football officials who were present at the game.  Midwest sought to hold each of the officials jointly and severally liable for the injuries suffered by English.

 The officials, all members of the Texas Association of Sports Officials (“TASO”), filed a counterclaim against Midwest and argued that Midwest’s lawsuit against them was frivolous because there was no basis in the law or facts to hold the officials liable for the coach’s injuries. 

 After several hearings, the trial court ruled that Midwest had no evidence to support its claim against the football officials, and the court dismissed Midwest’s claims on summary judgment.  However, the official’s counterclaim remained and was tried in a bench trial on May 17, 2010. 

 Bexar County District Court Judge David A. Berchelmann, Jr., who conducted the bench trial, awarded $50,000.00 in sanctions to officials Charles Harpole, Jim Carroll, Alan Kwast, Albert Lopez and Brock Pittman each, totaling $250,000.00 in sanctions.  The judge also awarded them $145,000 in attorneys’ fees and $8,193.99 in court costs.

 “It is extraordinarily rare for a court to sanction someone for simply bringing a lawsuit, however, this lawsuit had so little merit that sanctions were justified,” said Austin attorney Gary Schumann, who represented the referees.  “This ruling should send a very strong signal to the legal community against filing lawsuits against sports officials trying to hold the officials liable for on-field accidents” said Schumann, a partner in the law firm Savrick, Schumann, Johnson, McGarr, Kaminski & Shirley, L.L.P.

 There is no indication yet whether Midwest will seek a new trial or appeal the judgment

Unfortunately, the obituary:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sanantonio/obituary.aspx?pid=150979458


Offline ljudge

  • *
  • Posts: 420
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-2
Re: Big Ten Serious About Sideline Behavior
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2017, 10:33:19 AM »
In some ways it bothers me when people say if you have a collision in the 4th quarter it's YOUR fault.  I was in a game 10 years ago where one sideline was out of control (the other side) and we discussed at halftime.  The R made it clear it should have been dealt with in 1/2Q and not to "wait" to throw a flag.  Told them to get immediately under control at the 3Q kickoff.  In that conversation he asked how our sideline was.  We had no one encroaching even in the white the entire first half on our sideline and both of our replies were "good as gold...no issues whatsoever."  With about 4:30 to go in the 4th quarter I was in a full backpedal and smashed into an overzealous camera man.  Two neck surgeries later it bothers me to this day that it happened but on any given play it can happen.  I should have sued the heck out of him as the surgeries were both costly and painful.  I still get pain to this day when doing certain exercises, work in awkward positions, etc.  If people throw the flag we all need to remember "they did to themselves" and not worry about an coach "downgrading" you.  Not worth the consequences guys and gals.