Saw several messages that people had copies of articles or such in their bags for education. Any chance of said pages being available for download/printing? Last week I was inspecting a goal and it had several metal pins on the back of the goals, but they pulled right out, very loose wet ground. What is the actual standard for "checking" these and what do you consider "safe" - a certain amount of force pushing forward on the goal? I'm a new 8 and was instructed and take seriously the duty to check goals, but nobody gave me any specific advice on how to actually measure the safety of a goal in these "intermediate" zones (i.e. some attempt, but not ideal). Thank you.
Minimal test: Walk up to the net, facing the post. Put your foot against the post at the ground so it won't move. Put your hands on the post around shoulder height, lean back and give a pull. Does the net tip over?
And if the net does tip over make no effort to right it again. It makes a pretty strong visual message. (Aural too) Do make sure no one is nearby.
I'd be hesitant to pull a goal toward me like that if only for my own safety. I prefer to try to lift the back bar along the ground up. Some sort of lift/pull test is going to be necessary for turf fields where goals can't be staked down.
It's fairly safe - using NHRef's minimal test. If it stays in place with a reasonable tug, it's OK. At the local middle school, there were about 6 goals. They weren't secured at all! I pulled them all down, and notified the high school AD and one of the coaches (who is also a well respected assignor for club and high school).
So here's a question: is the level of concern the same for small goals? Played a game today with small goals, 9 foot I think, clearly much less weight and also much thinner crossbar to catch the wind. They were not weighted. Play or no play?
9 foot? Not sure what that means, since regular goals are 8 feet tall . . . the core question is can anyone get hurt. The u8's playing with 4' tall goals made of PVC pipe, no issues at all. If the goals are metal or other heavy material that can hurt anyone, well, that answers the question, doesn't it?
was talking width. They were metal, but much smaller thickness. I will insist they be weighted from now on.
Every goal. Every game. Anchored somehow. It doesn't matter the size of the goal, the age of the players. If you referee a game without anchored goals and something happens to the players because the goals arent anchored, you could be putting YOURSELF in a liability situation. And as for the 'can they get hurt' comment.... even on small goals kids can get hurt, why? How many times have you gone to a field and seen kids use the goals as 'monkey bars', or they hang on the net, etc... They shouldn't do it, but they do. If you don't have the goals anchored in and they put their hands on the goal, where is it going to go? Right on top of them as they fall on the ground. Its NEVER worth taking the risk to the players or your own reputation.
You really think so? Like maybe as seriously as the powers that be take Referee assault? As I have lots of free time on my hands methinks I might just check all the goals in my area and give a heads up where needed.
$40,000 is nothing, the plaintiffs attorney probably considers the verdict a loss. I'm sure the city was offering more than that to settle. From the bottom of the article:
I think that is fair. The city anchored its goals: These goals were brought in by this guy and his friends. He knew they weren't anchored. Note, Missouri is "pure" comparative fault, so he recovers total damages - those attributed to his fault. In many states, because his fault was > 50%, he would not have recovered anything.
I think the award is absurd. The city did nothing wrong, and now the taxpayers are out $40k + court costs because someone did something stupid and got themselves killed.
He knew the goal was unsecured (he helped move it), and hung on it anyway. No one is responsible for his death except himself. This attitude that someone must pay every time something bad happens is a huge part of what is wrong with modern America.
They're partially responsible, the jury found so as a matter of law. If the parks department does their job and removes unauthorized, unsecured goals, this never happened. If it was a five year old that got killed, you wouldn't complain about the city be hit for their negligence. Why should they be let off the hook just because he was negligent too? They were still negligent. In Missouri, his negligence doesn't cancel out theirs, it just offsets it.
Oh, because that makes it right, or negates his point that we have a severe problem with our overly litigious society.
Absolutely false! Retract your statement within the next 24 hours or I'll sue you for all you're worth!
Not quite. Juries find facts, not law. Judges decide law. Based on the legal definition of negligence and duty of care in the instructions from the judge, the jury decided that the facts fit the definition, and imposed liability. (Should the City appeal, the legal decisions by the judge are reviewed de novo (in other words, the Court of Appeal gives no deference to the trial judge, but just reaches what it perceives as the correct answer), and reviews the factual determinations under a very deferential standard (sometimes articulated as reversing the factual decisions only if "no reasonable jury" could have reached that decision under the applicable legal standard). This case happened in one flavor of comparative fault liability, and the city had to pay 25% of the loss even though the "victim" was 75% liable. This is not the case in many states, where tort reform has mandated no recovery for someone 50% or more liable. In other states I believe it is still the law that any negligence on the part of the "victim" prevents recovery. Frankly, we simply don't have enough of the facts from a newspaper article to fairly evaluate the jury's decision -- or the judge's instructions to them -- any more than reading an article about a call in a game gives us a fair way to evaluate a call that a referee made. Whether society is better off having the City liable in this context is certainly open to debate . . . but as I think a different web forum would be a better host, I'll keep my philosophical opinions on this to my self.
Just this afternoon was at Gen Store and noticed new goals set up at adjacent Town Park. Checked em, not anchored, then notified Parks & Rec of condition and danger. I'll check again tomorrow to see if I was taken seriously. If not I will be forced to become more of a PITA than I normally am.