Jump to content

Field Judge Rule Discussion One Season In


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, oldsnare said:

If both props and judges cause injuries to MM, but only judges were quarantined to the sidelines, then it is not about safety.

While there's no doubt in my mind that your sentiment is correct, and I'm fervently opposed to the rule, this argument is not valid because MMs are programmed around props so that "accidental" encounters are even more rare than judge mishaps.

THAT said, the whole "prop safety" issue, including the safety of those building, transporting, de-constructing the beasts, has yet to be addressed.

Cadets' prop-builders requested gloves, hard-toe boots, and hard hats from staff to build the bridge.  What is the activity doing by requiring that 20 yr old MM's be responsible for the construction safety of those running across and standing on the bridge?  Who's ox is gored if the prop fails and MMs tumble to the ground?  The assemblers?

Broken bolts, "...use a bigger hammer..." problem resolution, and transitioning to the performance zone across surfaces largely not considered by the engineers who mock them up and say "Yep, that should work!".  Brrrrrr....makes me shudder and the lawyers drool.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, garfield said:

While there's no doubt in my mind that your sentiment is correct, and I'm fervently opposed to the rule, this argument is not valid because MMs are programmed around props so that "accidental" encounters are even more rare than judge mishaps.

THAT said, the whole "prop safety" issue, including the safety of those building, transporting, de-constructing the beasts, has yet to be addressed.

Cadets' prop-builders requested gloves, hard-toe boots, and hard hats from staff to build the bridge.  What is the activity doing by requiring that 20 yr old MM's be responsible for the construction safety of those running across and standing on the bridge?  Who's ox is gored if the prop fails and MMs tumble to the ground?  The assemblers?

Broken bolts, "...use a bigger hammer..." problem resolution, and transitioning to the performance zone across surfaces largely not considered by the engineers who mock them up and say "Yep, that should work!".  Brrrrrr....makes me shudder and the lawyers drool.

 

Hmmmm.... thinking of props that members walk or stand on here...

Are the props inspected by qualified/licensed inspectors? And are there state or local laws that say the props must be inspected before they are used each time they are assembled. And where are the inspection sheets posted?

Work for Navy and some of our people need to go on ships that are being worked on for IT work. Easy to spot their cubicles as they are the ones with a hard hat (steel toed boots usually are at the house).

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, oldsnare said:

If both props and judges cause injuries to MM, but only judges were quarantined to the sidelines, then it is not about safety.

yup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

But the members are trained and practice DAILY for hours and know where the props are located, how to interact with them down to the specific counts, foot and hand placements etc. They are not rehearsed to all of the sudden make a blind direction change at high velocity only to see some out of shape dude (or dudette) right where they are going to be in the next .00001th of a second. Your argument is invalid.....

finals week isn't exactly first reads. if you actually pay attention, you can see things shift and be prepared

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

finals week isn't exactly first reads. if you actually pay attention, you can see things shift and be prepared

Corps can, do and have changed things up until the last week of the season and some of the judges haven't had a read since SA. Having the judges that entrenched into the middle of the field just is not necessary nor is it safe for the performer or the judge. My guess is the rule will be somewhat modified for next season but will never go back to the way it was before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, garfield said:

While there's no doubt in my mind that your sentiment is correct, and I'm fervently opposed to the rule, this argument is not valid because MMs are programmed around props so that "accidental" encounters are even more rare than judge mishaps.

THAT said, the whole "prop safety" issue, including the safety of those building, transporting, de-constructing the beasts, has yet to be addressed.

Cadets' prop-builders requested gloves, hard-toe boots, and hard hats from staff to build the bridge.  What is the activity doing by requiring that 20 yr old MM's be responsible for the construction safety of those running across and standing on the bridge?  Who's ox is gored if the prop fails and MMs tumble to the ground?  The assemblers?

Broken bolts, "...use a bigger hammer..." problem resolution, and transitioning to the performance zone across surfaces largely not considered by the engineers who mock them up and say "Yep, that should work!".  Brrrrrr....makes me shudder and the lawyers drool.

 

This was discussed in detail earlier in season in another thread.

As an engineer I see a number of potential  issues with large props.

These include:

1.The qualifications of the designers.

2.Who is in charge of assembly,disassembly,transport,maintenance ,etc.

 3.Does the corps keep any type of maintenance/repair log ?

I do expert testimony for cases involving things like damaged playground equipment.

I don't think DCI or the individual corps realize just how vulnerable they are if a MM gets 

injured because of (directly or indirectly) a prop.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

Corps can, do and have changed things up until the last week of the season and some of the judges haven't had a read since SA. Having the judges that entrenched into the middle of the field just is not necessary nor is it safe for the performer or the judge. My guess is the rule will be somewhat modified for next season but will never go back to the way it was before.

and yet zero judges went down over tarps last year while cavies performed, but their members did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

and yet zero judges went down over tarps last year while cavies performed, but their members did.

Two BK performers went down in prelims this year...must have been that invisible tarp they had that tripped them up. Your point makes zero sense other than to attempt to change the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garfield said:

While there's no doubt in my mind that your sentiment is correct, and I'm fervently opposed to the rule, this argument is not valid because MMs are programmed around props so that "accidental" encounters are even more rare than judge mishaps.

THAT said, the whole "prop safety" issue, including the safety of those building, transporting, de-constructing the beasts, has yet to be addressed.

Cadets' prop-builders requested gloves, hard-toe boots, and hard hats from staff to build the bridge.  What is the activity doing by requiring that 20 yr old MM's be responsible for the construction safety of those running across and standing on the bridge?  Who's ox is gored if the prop fails and MMs tumble to the ground?  The assemblers?

Broken bolts, "...use a bigger hammer..." problem resolution, and transitioning to the performance zone across surfaces largely not considered by the engineers who mock them up and say "Yep, that should work!".  Brrrrrr....makes me shudder and the lawyers drool.

 

With your experience as a show sponsor (TEP, XYZ, or whatever they are called these days,) I presume there are a number here who like me would wonder on a show sponsor's liability if the Mandarins' bungee-cord holder had slipped, if the Vanguards' fire house pole had been too slippery to grasp, if the Crossmen's axe had hit a certain percussion judge??? (In full disclosure, I had a cousin who ended up becoming paralyzed when he slipped off the pole at a NYC firehouse where he was on professional staff; he died at an early age as a result. I've also done years of emergency room volunteering plus ambulance crew staffing including one major airline crash where 79 passengers died and another 80 lived. Yes, I do think the worse from having been there.)

How liable is DCI, how liable the corps, the show sponsor, the field owner or arena owner?

If Chester and Denver can have problem with props and the field surface, what will the corps lawyers say about these wacky props?

Edited by xandandl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that membership contracts cover for this type of liability. The fact is you can die walking down a flight of stairs...should we outlaw stairs? This argument has driven itself into the ridiculous ditch.....

Edited by Spatzzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...