Posted on 09/30/2005 11:52:12 AM PDT by Macaw
A legless teen in Ohio who was told he cannot play during a game in Cincinnati because of a rule requiring players to wear shoes and knee pads will be allowed to play in future games, according to a Local 6 News report.
Bobby Martin was told at halftime of a recent game at Mount Healthy High School in Cincinnati that he could not finish the game because of the shoes and knee pads rule.
Martin said the decision made him feel disabled for the first time.
"That's the first time in 17 years," Martin said. "That's a landmark."
"Bobby was in tears about that, the whole team was mad," a teammate said. "The coach was in tears."
The Colonel White High School senior had played in all of the other season games as a member of the punt return team, using his arms to move down the field.
After checking the case, the Ohio High School Athletic Association said game officials made a mistake when they kept Martin from playing last week, according to an Associated Press report.
"The officials erred, but they erred on the side of caution," said Bob Goldring, an assistant commissioner with the OHSAA. "They did not want to see him get hurt."
Goldring said the association planned to send a letter Tuesday to the Dayton school district that reaffirms Martin's eligibility, according to a report.
Martin's story has drawn national attention. He has been encouraging others to live life to the fullest.
"Just go for it," Martin said. "Try new things in life, that's what life's all about. Don't look at me as having no legs, just look at me standing six feet tall,"
Martin is also on the school's wrestling team and is running for homecoming king.
Funny you should mention that. Rutherford and Bohr were both top football players in college.
I agree, and I'm torn.
On one hand, the rule probably clearly states all players must wear shoes and knee pads. That means all players, even if they don't have legs to put `em on. It'd be ridiculous to figure out where he'd wear `em, and it'd probably be twenty minutes until the conference changed its rules if he threaded the shoes and knee pads into his jersey. So part of me thinks that he should have just done that and let them force him off the field, then made the conference change the rules. That would stop whiny liberal types from trying to work into some other sort of interpretation as well. "Well, that legless kid doesn't have to wear knee pads, and my kid gets a rash when he does..."
On the other hand, it's common sense for referees to exercise discretion in enforcing the rules. How could a ref be this stupid as to not see the result? Why would any damnfool ref subject himself to this kind of humiliation--as he unquestionably was for such a silly letter-of-the-law enforcement action?
I think it comes down to those who would prefer the former outcome are strict interpretationists, damn the consequences, and those who would prefer the latter are pragmatist conservatives. I think I'll take the former, ridiculous as the idea of forcing the kid to wear useless shoes and pads may be. Better to make the law clear and specifically applicable.
And btw, the rule is stupid in the first place. It's a typical rule imposed to protect people from themselves. Who is hurt by a failure to use knee pads and shoes but the dumbass kid who doesn't wear `em, anyway? Sounds like a rule imposed by goodie-goodies.
I support the kid.
But isn't it the job of official to interpret the existing rules? And not to "legislate" from the field?
I would think that a referee, upon reading this, would realize there was no way to 'properly fit' the equipment here, and use discretion. But as I mentioned above, better to get the law changed so that common sense is allowed, or even better yet, so people without common sense are allowed to be their own victims instead of victimizing others with such silly nannying rules as 'players must wear proper equipment.'
>>does not have feet you do not need a waiver to excuse their lack of shoes<<
If you READ the Federation football rule book, you will find, under REQUIRED equipment, shoes. The rule doesn't anticipate this situation, obviously, but its the same question I asked the other coach: what rules do you follow, and what do you ignore? Further, are YOU willing to indemnify the officials if they don't follow a particular rule that you don't think should be followed in a narrow case, and they get sued?
Everyone has this supposed holier than thou BS common sense until its their BUTT on the line.
>>You say on one hand that you don't even need to have played a sport or be good at it to be a good official yet you go to great lengths to talk about what you accomplished on the athletic field,<<
I was RESPONDING to the implied assertion (or evidence for the point) you made. I was not trying to make a point myself. My best sport was probably baseball, and I didn't like umpiring it the very few times I did it, and probably wasn't very good at it.
>> your "attack" on me<<
Oh, please. Don't pretend to be John Kerry.
??I do not think it would have been a misinterpretation of the rules (even in a liability issue) to negate the need for pads and shoes if there are not corresponding body parts for them. I would think that they are for that players safety, not the other guys.<<
As an attorney and an official, I can assure you that failure to follow MANDETORY rules can get officials in very hot water, especially as safety is concerned.
I also asked you to specify what rules can be ignored and the ones that must be followed. Obviously, the rules did not anticipate this situation, but that is what state associations are for. I don't understand why the officials are the ones given grief here (well, scratch that, I do understand) when all the coach or AD had to do was to call the state association and inform them about the situation. The ED would then have made a determination, notified the state officiating organization, who would have notified the local chapter.
To the extent you don't like what happened, you need to blame the school folks. They KNEW what the kid's situation was and should have known the rules. The fact that they didn't reinforces my point about way too many coaches.
Just had to bump your post.
If he wants to play, let him play. He's got more guts than any ten people I know.
Quite the generalizations about officials, don't you think? Should I make sweeping judgments about how most coaches are a$$holes simply because a few of them are?
I don't blame the refs for enforcing the rules as they interpreted them at the time, though I agree with the follow-up ruling that allows him to play. If he, his parents, and doctor say he's healthy enough to play, I say let him compete.
That said, I'm not buying that he's on the field based on qualifications. There is no way you can run-and-block, sustain a block, or sustain a burst through the line without the legs to drive off. When he blocks, he has to use his arms to jump up, then launch his body to make the block. However, few blocks are successful with one launch, they have to be sustained to be effective. By definition he can't sustain a block.
It's great that he works hard to try to compete with such limitations, however competitive sports aren't the place to play someone out of generosity. That's what rec leagues are for. There are thousands of other kids working just as hard who get no attention for their accomplishments.
Ha! I knew that. But of course. Just testing to see if you knew. (lol)
That's an outrage! on the ACLU football team they would have been starters, tho I haven't figured out what positions.
A rational interpretation of rules requiring players to wear shoes and kneepads, is that the shoes are meant to protect the feet and the kneepads are meant to protect the knees. No feet or knees = no shoes or kneepads needed. Not to mention that the boy had already played in several sanctioned games that season, with no official intervention. Presumably his first game got plenty of local media coverage, and the Ohio school sports sanctioning body would have intervened if it deemed it necessary. Ref should have applied common sense here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.