|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 29, 2012 12:03:41 GMT 10
Noticed this clause in the playing conditions during the year and thought it interesting...
8) Heat Affected Games
f) No person is forced by Baseball Victoria to participate in any match and clubs shall place no pressure on any participant if he/she considers withdrawing from any part of match for health reasons.
Since the threat of forfeit must be considered coersive, this clause would suggest if a player, or players, withdrew from a game due to health concerns and no result could be concluded, the game must end without result.
Let's play this hypothetical... a popular club person gets married on Saturday night, and the majority of the team enjoy the merriment of the night, despite their team being scheduled to play the following day.
At the start of the game, the temperature has reached 28 degrees and the coach informs the umpire his players have determined that due to the moderate heat and their severe dehydration, it is a health risk for them to take the field.
Can we assume under the above clause, this is a no result?
|
|
|
|
Post by wako on Mar 29, 2012 13:06:22 GMT 10
Nate, my reading is that it is still a forfeit.
The first clause of the quoted rule ("No person is forced...") merely clarifies that people may opt out of participating and no force, such as civil or criminal legal recourse, threats of violence, etc. will be applied by BV to oppose that. If the threat of forfeit was considered coercive force, then no forfeit could ever be recorded except in cases of serious misconduct, eg: such a number of players from a team being ejected as to not have seven players to take the field, or the match awarded to a team due to dangerous conduct by spectators of the opposition, etc. I don't think a forfeit can be considered a "gun to the head", so to speak.
The second clause ("and clubs shall place no pressure...") should be self-explanatory; if I tell you that I am injured or ill and cannot play, you (as an agent of the club) cannot pressure me to do so.
In your hypothetical, the coach places no pressure on his dehydrated players to play (in accordance with the rule), and the umpire (as an agent of BV) permits the coach to freely exercise his option of forfeiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Mar 29, 2012 16:33:49 GMT 10
Agreed Wako..The umpire enforces the consequence of not having sufficient players to take the field. This is a long standing effect regardless of the cause, not a coercion. If a player is driving cross town in a hurry to make up the vital number to field a team and crashes, he could hardly argue that the "threat of a forfeit coerced him into driving in a reckless manner"A player may feel under pressure to take the field with an injury for instance, rather than have his/her team forfeit. Call it loyalty, peer pressure or foolhardiness, but it can't be interpreted as "coercion by the rules"
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 29, 2012 23:20:59 GMT 10
Interesting neither of you see the treat of forfeit as coersive... In my mind, I would consider it an apparatus of force to ensure the game proceeds.
eck, I'm not sure umpires do enforce forfeits... my understanding is in the case of a forfeit, an umpire completes the match card, noting one club was unable to field a team and it's BV who determines the forfeit.
In your example of the person driving recklessly, I agree a court wouldn't accept the threat of forfeit as coersion to justify your actions... I'm just as certain a civil court wouldn't accept it as coersion in the instance of litigation against BV if someone played and suffered negative effects on their health.
But BV have put this clause in for a reason... I would say to protect from this situation arising...perhaps on legal advise??? I thought a severe hangover would make an interesting test case!
|
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Mar 30, 2012 10:20:36 GMT 10
A severe hangover is a self-inflicted health issue. BV and the opposing team shouldn't/couldn't be punished for a team/player making a choice to inflict him/herself with a hangover.
Theres no choice for any extreme heat days - nobody on either side can change the weather...
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 30, 2012 11:36:49 GMT 10
A severe hangover is a self-inflicted health issue. BV and the opposing team shouldn't/couldn't be punished for a team/player making a choice to inflict him/herself with a hangover. Theres no choice for any extreme heat days - nobody on either side can change the weather... Stockley, point noted, but the doesn't differentiate between different health concerns, it simply states health reasons. Let's forget the hangover... let's say the players has a team dinner the night before, raising money to buy kittens for local orphans, and a number of players were hit with food poisoning... the resulting vomiting and diarrhea has left the players severley dehydrated, and the players believe it would be a health risk to take the field... the club has no other players that can take the field in their place... the orphans were considered, but their diet of gruel has left them weakened and in no state to perform physical activity... that's why they needed the kittens in the first place... And, go... Seriously, I'm not saying there is a serious, or even legitimate, problem here... I found the clause interesting (it's a clear 'ass-coverer') and wondered what others thought, particularly in regard to the idea of forfeiture as force applied by BV. |
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Mar 30, 2012 15:05:11 GMT 10
So, as the team sitting 4th with one game to go against the 5th place team, we all end up with dehydration, and decide we can't the field, assuring our entry to finals?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using ProBoards
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 30, 2012 16:44:44 GMT 10
So, as the team sitting 4th with one game to go against the 5th place team, we all end up with dehydration, and decide we can't the field, assuring our entry to finals? Sent from my GT-I9000 using ProBoards Oh stockley, now your just being cynical! But yes, I wonder... I found the language of the clause to be very broad, so I wonder, in your example, what would be the outcome... would a forfeit be absolute?... could the 'dehydrated' team argue force against their better health if it was absolute? I know we have bigger fish to fry, but with no baseball I've got too much spare time! |
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Mar 30, 2012 17:38:54 GMT 10
Interesting point aureagle re whether the forfeit is absolute. Presumably natural disasters or extreme circumstances affecting a teams ability to attend the game (we have to assume the field was playable and one team was not affected..a long bow but possible)The clause would appear to give the Pennant Committe the option of rescheduling etc. I understand your point re coercion..I go to work through the coercion of paying the bills..I once attended the Opera on coercion of losing the relationship..none of which can be blamed on other party e.g employer or BV Victoria
P.S. No relationship is worth a night at the Opera!
|
|
