- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Referee Harassment Bill
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:51 pm to tgrbaitn08
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:51 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
The bill doesn't say that one must threaten an official to be in violation. It says the official, "feels threatened".
So it is solely a subjective decision of the official.
Again, dangerous precedent.
Doesn't it say "fear of receiving bodily harm".
Again, this is very similar to current assault laws and will be enforced the same way. It just creates officials as a protected class (which per my post above you actually want even if you don't know it yet)
quote:
so if a fan or coach tells the ump that he's garbage..the ump can throw that person out of the park, call the cops and say he felt threatened
No, that's not what this bill is for. This isn't for ridicule, this is for threats. Parents yell at us all the time. Multiple times every week. Want to know a secret? We don't hear you from the field. Often it's too loud and we've also trained ourselves to tune you out. This is for the a-hole that approaches us in the parking lot in a threatening manner. Ask us questions respectfully, we'll gladly explain to you that it definitely WAS intentional grounding because the notion of "being outside the tackle box" doesn't exist in high school football.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 3:22 pm
2
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:54 pm to GOON
quote:
We don't hear you.
That's rule #1: Develop or have a thick skin. You're officiating what's on the field in front of you. Not listening to the immature adults in the stands who like to hear themselves and think they matter.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:55 pm to GOON
So what about an instance when a malicious official antagonizes a fanbase online, then makes a deliberately false call impacting that team in a game contributing to a loss and it is PROVEN? Are the individuals who called him out now guilty under this law?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:55 pm to NASA_ISS_Tiger
quote:
That's rule #1: Develop or have a thick skin. You're officiating what's on the field in front of you. Not listening to the immature adults in the stands who like to hear themselves and think they matter.
Exactly. Officials that don't have thick skin don't last very long. We don't hear you on the field. But get in our face as we are leaving and that's a different story.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 2:56 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
So what about an instance when a malicious official antagonizes a fanbase online, then makes a deliberately false call impacting that team in a game contributing to a loss and it is PROVEN? Are the individuals who called him out now guilty under this law?
I don't know about those that called him out on it. If they threatened him, they should probably still be responsible for the threats. No sporting event should lead to violence. If people are simply, and civilly, questioning the call, that's fine. No problem.
I can tell you this, however, that official SHOULD NOT officiate ever again.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:00 pm to GOON
I'm pointing out the potential for abuse.
In today's world, even a false accusation can ruin someone.
In today's world, even a false accusation can ruin someone.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:02 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
I'm pointing out the potential for abuse.
In today's world, even a false accusation can ruin someone.
Possibly. And I see your point. There are bad officials, same as there are bad cops and bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad accountants, etc. Some assholes will just be an a-hole no matter what and abuse this law.
But that should be the exception, not the rule. Hopefully.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:09 pm to GOON
quote:
But get in our face as we are leaving and that's a different story.
And that would be covered under the normal assault laws. LINK
quote:
§36. Assault defined
Assault is an attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.
Here, if the ref feels threatened or has emotional distress, it's a crime.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:20 pm to bbrownso
Again, the statute posted in the OP says "fear of receiving bodily harm", not "feels threatened or has emotional distress". If I'm missing that somewhere, show me where.
Also, "fear of receiving bodily harm" is basically the same thing as "placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery".
Just don't be an a-hole and threaten an official and everyone will be fine.
Also, "fear of receiving bodily harm" is basically the same thing as "placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery".
Just don't be an a-hole and threaten an official and everyone will be fine.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:21 pm to tgrbaitn08
I'm not sure of your time frame or number of games. My number of games is probably in the 5000 range. Physical threats are rare, but becoming less so. As for actual assaults, I can only think of 5 that I have witnessed. As for harassment, that is a totally different story. It is much more pronounced now. Hell, I have had to tell parents to leave facilities for harassing pre-teens calling games/matches for 4 and 5 year olds. Sadly, the parents showing their arse typically don't know the rules well enough to argue a call in the first place. I have seen refs/officials put parents in their place (quite effectively no less...including a 12 year old that straightened out an attorney), but most ignore them in order to de-escalate.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:34 pm to Teufelhunden
Someone's feelings are a terrible thing to base legal policy on. It's basically totally subjective and dependent on the individual. A sideways glance might make certain people feel in fear. Who wrote this piece of legislation?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:57 pm to GOON
quote:
You might think I'm exaggerating or speaking in hyperbole, but these are hypothetical situations that could happen. Older officials are retiring and the younger generation doesn't want to do it. Why? Low pay and a lot of hostility.
This is the the absolute truth. There is a huge issue with referee shortages in many sports across the country. And the number one reason they give for leaving the job is the abuse by the parents and coaches.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 3:58 pm to cable
quote:
Who wrote this piece of legislation?
Cameron fricking Henry.
The same cuk that’s trying to kill sports betting in Louisiana
Posted on 6/4/19 at 4:42 pm to Teufelhunden
Youth sports, I support. College, and pro? No friggin way i would support that bill.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:05 pm to Teufelhunden
quote:
Is this really necessary?
I haven't really decided how I feel about legislating this issue but referee harassment is a huge problem.
Parents lose their minds.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:43 pm to GOON
quote:When I first looked (a bit before I posted - I had another post I was going to make but decided against it), the latest version seemed to be the reengrossed version which included the following language:
Again, the statute posted in the OP says "fear of receiving bodily harm", not "feels threatened or has emotional distress". If I'm missing that somewhere, show me where.
quote:
(2) For purposes of this Paragraph, harassment shall include verbal or non verbal behavior by the offender that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety, to feel alarmed, or to suffer emotional distress
And clearly, the enrolled bill only has the following language:
quote:
(2) For purposes of this Paragraph, "harassment" shall include verbal or non verbal behavior by the offender that would cause a reasonable person to be placed in fear of receiving bodily harm.
So we can say we were both technically right, depending on your linear viewpoint.
quote:
Also, "fear of receiving bodily harm" is basically the same thing as "placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery".
Exactly. We don't need ANOTHER law to handle what is already codified. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
All this does is basically try to stop "verbal and non verbal behavior" toward a fairly limited group of people. The verbal part could conceivably be an infringement on First Amendment rights which leads to more wasted money on court challenges. And the non verbal stuff sounds very subjective and subsequently hard to enforce in any regular manner.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:04 pm to bbap
quote:
Parents lose their minds.
I watched a father being removed from a tee ball game of all things. He'd cursed etc... I mean these were little bitty kids. Even worse was that this parent was involved with the league like on the board or something like that. So unnecessary and stupid.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 7:15 pm to GOON
heres an up vote
Posted on 6/4/19 at 11:48 pm to JETigER
quote:
Can the officials be harassed then if the gametime was 64 minutes instead of 60 minutes like all games should have been.
It must have been quite a feat to add 16 minutes to the game.
High school football games are 48 minutes.
Posted on 6/5/19 at 5:38 am to Buckeye Jeaux
Man there are a lot of refs on here downvoting some very common sense arguments against.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News