No $50K prize for 11-year-old who made 89-foot hockey shot

Yahoo! News ^ | 8/31/2011 | Sean Leahy

[americanophile]

Earlier this month at a charity hockey event in Faribault, Minn., 11-year-old Nate Smith made an 89-foot shot from center ice to win $50,000.

The problem was that Nate's twin brother, Nick, was the one who purchased the winning raffle ticket. When the time came to attempt the shot, Nick was outside of the arena unaware he had won, so in stepped Nate to score the miraculous goal.

After the boys' father, Pat, came forward the next day and admitted to event organizers about the twins' switch, Odds on Promotions, the company that insured the event, held up awarding the prize money.

On Wednesday, the company decided against giving Nate the $50,000 and instead announced it will donate $20,000 to Minnesota youth hockey in the boys' names. The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released, but more than likely it was written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.

[Baynative]

VERY GOOD POINT. If Nick's name was called rather than just a ticket number then brother Nate was not eligible to stand in. But, if it was just the ticket number that was called, things are different.

In your example; a person could buy five tickets and give them to different people who would all be eligible if their own number was called. That would change the way the story seems to read.

[Will88]

If the contest was open to anyone of any age who chose to purchase a ticket, what difference does it make who took the shot? The purchaser of the should be able to give the ticket to someone else if they choose to do that. And

The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released,

Seems an exact explanation would be necessary her.

[americanophile]

It doesn’t. It’s just an insurance company avoiding liability. Same old game.

[In Maryland]

Instructive link - from the OddsOn wensite:

"At Odds On Promotions, we give you the ability to up the ante during your next contest, game, marketing campaign, promotion, you name it! You can offer fabulous prizes worth millions of dollars without the risk of a payout. All within your budget."

without the risk of a payout ... I know what they are saying is they provide the insurance, but they might want to work on the wording in light of these events.

[djf]

What if the person who won the rights to make the shot had been a paraplegic?

Would that person then have had the right to select a nominee to try the shot?

The fact that they let SOMEBODY even try the shot implies they were willing to take the risk and agreed to be bound by the results.

[az_gila]

How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?

---

“...written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.”

Sounds like the rules were written by the insurance company.

I wonder if they were transmitted to the contestants? ...or did they just read the policy after the one in a million shot?

[Will88]

Lots of folks here are making all sorts of high minded moral judgments and the article doesn't even say exactly what the rules of the contest were, and the company hasn't said exactly why they didn't reward the money.

but more than likely it was written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.

That is speculation by the writer of the article.

As is so often the case: More information needed.

[americanophile]

The kids are minors, there's no valid contract here. The tickets were purchased for them. If they were only going to allow purchasers to claim the prize, then they had a duty to ensure that only adults (18+), utilizing their own money, purchased raffle tickets. Yet, they allowed an 11-year-old to get up and take the shot. They knew from the beginning, by virtue of his age, that he didn't buy the ticket himself. That it was in his brother's hand before his is irrelevant - neither of them purchased it, a condition which the company knowingly waved when it allowed them to take the shot.

In reality, the odds were no one would make the shot, someone did, and the company is weaseling out of it.

[Deaf Smith]

If there was $50K in escrow for the prize and $20K was given to a charity...where is the other $30K?

[101voodoo]

Are you serious? The “contract” was based on the holder of the winning ticket in a draw taking the shot.

What are you, a freakin’ liberal?

[Balding_Eagle]

It’s just an insurance company avoiding liability. Same old game.

The insurance company paid, even though they didn't have too.

[americanophile]

...on an actuarial spreadsheet.

[americanophile]

In my opinion, they did have to.

[Balding_Eagle]

And they did. WHy did you claim they were avoiding paying out?

[4yearlurker]

Back in the late 1970s a buddy of mine attended a 76er’s basketball game at the Spectrum in Philly. Half time they called one ticket stub number for a chance to throw from half court and win a new car and a trip to Jamaica. His number was called and he took his throw from half court and swished the shot. The crowd all cheered! However it took my bud 6 months to collect. He finally had to hire a lawyer to get his prizes. The 76er’s even stated that he didn't make the shot! The throw was on film and they finally paid.

[reed13]

concur

[Will88]

The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released, but more than likely it was written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.

That poorly written sentence does not say what some think it says. The way it is written, the writer is speculating why the money was not awarded.

If it was known why the money was not awarded, this part of the sentence could not have been true, and would not have been needed: The exact reasoning for not awarding the money was not released

If the speculative part of the sentence was known to be true, it should been worded: it was written into the policy, without the qualifier that preceded that: "but more than likely".

Extremely poor reporting and writing. And no one can know from this exactly what the rules of the contest were.

[afraidfortherepublic]

What about the fact that the kid making the shot generated a ton of good will for the insurance co. and entertainment value for the attendees. Nevermind all the pubicity afterward?

Surely that is worth a lot just in advertising.

[gusty]

If I had the winning ticket, would it be alright for me to let Mario Lemeieux take the shot for me.

[calex59]

To start with what difference did it make who took the shot. They were both in the same family and paid for the ticket. There was no fraud involved because both kids had about the same skill and they didn't run in a ringer. If the brother who made the shot was better than the other one why wasn't the ticket in his name to start with. This is just BS by the insurance company so they can save themselves 50,000 bucks. The kid made the shot, the ticket was paid for, someone in the family should have been able to take the shot if the original kid wasn't available.

It's not as if the boy cheated to make the shot, he made it fair and square. The insurance company is just like all of them, any frickin' excuse not to pay up.