stuckincincy Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 nm. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...210387/1068/SPT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 He may have no legs but he's got some serious balls. That's great he's playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Dayton Daily News ran a cover page story about this kid in the Sunday sports section on 9/11. It was an awe-inspiring read. For those who don't check the link above, we have a kid playing high school football here in Dayton who has no legs. He runs around the field using his arms. In the last game he played, he had two tackles -- one on special teams and another on defense. Monday morning, the headline story on the front page of the Dayton Daily was about the situation that led to him being removed from the next game. From Dayton Daily News' Tom Archdeacon's coverage of this story: "He said Bobby couldn't play because he didn't have shoes on," Colonel White assistant Kerry Ivy said. "He told me the rule says a player must wear shoes, thigh pads and knee pads. I told him, 'He needs feet before he can wear shoes. He needs legs before he can wear those other pads. What are you thinking? Then he said Bobby needed a medical waiver. I told him he'd already played three games, but he said those were the rules." The decision in the game at Mount Healthy left Martin in tears. "It's the first time in my life I ever felt like that," Martin said Monday as he readied for practice after school. "Everybody was looking at me, talking about what I didn't have. I felt like a clown. I hated it. I just wanted to know why it was different this game than all the rest." Shame on the referees. Cincy paper article seems to be defending them -- there is no defense for using a uniform rule to omit a kid who clearly can't comply with it. The uniform code referenced was for LEG protection. This kid doesn't have legs!!! Therefore, why would he need leg protection? This isn't the first time the kid laced 'em up, and everyone involved knew about the situation. Simply a disgusting decision. I've been pissed about this all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Dayton Daily News ran a cover page story about this kid in the Sunday sports section on 9/11. It was an awe-inspiring read. For those who don't check the link above, we have a kid playing high school football here in Dayton who has no legs. He runs around the field using his arms. In the last game he played, he had two tackles -- one on special teams and another on defense. Monday morning, the headline story on the front page of the Dayton Daily was about the situation that led to him being removed from the next game. From Dayton Daily News' Tom Archdeacon's coverage of this story: Shame on the referees. Cincy paper article seems to be defending them -- there is no defense for using a uniform rule to omit a kid who clearly can't comply with it. The uniform code referenced was for LEG protection. This kid doesn't have legs!!! Therefore, why would he need leg protection? This isn't the first time the kid laced 'em up, and everyone involved knew about the situation. Simply a disgusting decision. I've been pissed about this all week. 449346[/snapback] The officials are in a lose/lose situation. If they don't let the kid play there are people who will get pissed off and if they let the kid play and he gets hurt they have people asking, "why did you let a kid with no legs on the field in the first place?" You lash into the officials, but I don't envy them having to make the call. It shouldn't have been up to them, if everybody knew this was coming the governing body of the sport should have made a ruling on it beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 ...Simply a disgusting decision...449346[/snapback] I agree. It's the kind of decision that gets made out of FEAR. Fear of liability, fear of getting in trouble, fear of getting sued. The hyper-litigious, bureaucratic aspects of our culture tend to bring out the worst in people. Inevitable result: the little guy gets burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I agree. It's the kind of decision that gets made out of FEAR. Fear of liability, fear of getting in trouble, fear of getting sued. The hyper-litigious, bureaucratic aspects of our culture tend to bring out the worst in people. Inevitable result: the little guy gets burned. 449364[/snapback] Or... It was the first time these refs encountered the situation and made the best call they could given the lack of direction in the rulebook. The school should have secured a waiver from the state body. Shoot, we had to when I was playing as a kid because of a cast on my right wrist. The knee-jerk reaction is to blame the refs, but personally, I think it's the school's responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I agree. It's the kind of decision that gets made out of FEAR. Fear of liability, fear of getting in trouble, fear of getting sued. The hyper-litigious, bureaucratic aspects of our culture tend to bring out the worst in people. Inevitable result: the little guy gets burned. 449364[/snapback] Yup, but since those are the rules that have been created, you can't blame the officials for following them. Their fear was very justified: they'd have been open to a lawsuit if the kid had been hurt. MDH hit the nail on the head above IMO. If this story pisses you off, than you ought to be in favor of tort reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The officials are in a lose/lose situation. If they don't let the kid play there are people who will get pissed off and if they let the kid play and he gets hurt they have people asking, "why did you let a kid with no legs on the field in the first place?" You lash into the officials, but I don't envy them having to make the call. It shouldn't have been up to them, if everybody knew this was coming the governing body of the sport should have made a ruling on it beforehand. 449362[/snapback] I dasagree. The kid would be covered under the schools umbrella policy so that would not be a concern. We can assume that the school cleared this with their insurer. If he did get hurt people would not blame the officials, they might blame the school and parents, but not the officials. If it's shoes, thigh pads and knee pads that will make the officials happy then the kid should play with shoes strapped to his back, thigh pads as forearm pads and knee pads at the bottom of his uniform pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanone Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I wonder if anyone tried to chop block him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I wonder if anyone tried to chop block him. 449404[/snapback] It was just a matter of time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I dasagree. The kid would be covered under the schools umbrella policy so that would not be a concern. We can assume that the school cleared this with their insurer. If he did get hurt people would not blame the officials, they might blame the school and parents, but not the officials. We're not talking about insurance or liability, we're talking about the court of public opinion. Yes, if this kid got seriously injured, you can bet people would be second guessing the officials (and the coaches). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanone Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 It was just a matter of time... 449407[/snapback] I come through in the clutch again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 They excluded him for fear that he might get hurt PLAYING FOOTBALL?!? Wouldnt their precedent have to exclude everyone from playing then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 We're not talking about insurance or liability, we're talking about the court of public opinion. Yes, if this kid got seriously injured, you can bet people would be second guessing the officials (and the coaches). CW 449408[/snapback] Other posts did mention liability. It's the kind of decision that gets made out of FEAR. Fear of liability, fear of getting in trouble, fear of getting sued. The hyper-litigious, bureaucratic aspects of our culture tend to bring out the worst in people. The officials were off base IMO if the school's insurer OKed the kid playing and the other team had no issues. The officials were trying to cover their collective asses, period. So you would be OK with him playing as long as he had the "proper" equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Other posts did mention liability. The officials were off base IMO if the school's insurer OKed the kid playing and the other team had no issues. The officials were trying to cover their collective asses, period. So you would be OK with him playing as long as he had the "proper" equipment? 449414[/snapback] The officials actually are NOT covered by the school's insurance for the most part. You need to take out your own insurance if you're worried. Also, the rulebook doesn't just say "wear shoes anywhere on your body." It's fairly descriptive. The coaches should've had the waiver with them if they wanted him to play. Yes, the officials are probably just covering their butts, but keep in mind that they make $30/game. I know, I used to do it. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I wonder if anyone tried to chop block him. Should I feel guilty for falling off my chair on that one? (please insert "atleast you landed on your feet or something like that here") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanone Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I wonder if anyone tried to chop block him. Should I feel guilty for falling off my chair on that one? (please insert "atleast you landed on your feet or something like that here") 449426[/snapback] See you in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 See you in hell. 449434[/snapback] I didnt want to say anything, and i tried hard not to laugh, but... save me a seat with the bills fans down there, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Dayton Daily News ran a cover page story about this kid in the Sunday sports section on 9/11. It was an awe-inspiring read. For those who don't check the link above, we have a kid playing high school football here in Dayton who has no legs. He runs around the field using his arms. In the last game he played, he had two tackles -- one on special teams and another on defense. 449346[/snapback] Is he actually a good player? Is here in there as a side show or can he really play? I don't mean any offense with this question, just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I have no problem with a kid who wants to play, but can he truly compete? If the coach restricts him to KO and PR cover teams, he should be fine. There's usually enough space for the opposing team to avoid him, rather than having to go after him. That would be my main concern. Finding him at a CB spot on D, and knowing that your pulling guard has to lay the wood to him to make the play work. Do you call plays to avoid contacting him? Do you call plays to take advantage of him? Even on return teams, how can you ask a young kid to drive this kid into next week? He may not be considered handicapped by his family, his friends, his school system, his coaches, or his teammates, but in the context of playing football, he is. That's a reality that no amount of political correctness can alter. Protests and waivers won't stop some mean S.O.B. from planting a knee in his chest or head. He's a courageous kid, and an inspiration, no doubt, but my 'common sense' alarm is going off on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts