Lets Drive to Utah on a Holiday Weekend to play teams from California

Kicker4Life said:
Is that your word of the day? I am on point. You just don’t like it.
Click to expand...

You aren't. You're playing whataboutism. Just stop. The question is around a TD going forward with hosting a tournament even though they know the numbers are likely to expose people to the virus. That is high risk and I cannot imagine a TD wanting to have their text messages, emails, etc., go through discovery. SoCal cup cancelled. Surf cup postponed, again. There's a reason for this. The TDs are making these decisions because they understand the potential legal gray area they're entering into. You want to put together a tournament and invite 100 teams? Go for it! Just recognize that there is a very very strong likelihood that one or more players will contract the virus that weekend and regardless of how sympathetic you feel a judge in arbitration would be, you are extremely likely to get bent over the barrel.
 
RayClemence said:
How do you know if the Covid spreader didnt catch the virus at da beach first from someone else and then they brought it to the field who then took it home to grandma and the she died. How in the hell are you going to prove this Mr lawyer? This is starting to sound like extortion and blackmail BS!!! 600 lawyers on one side and 900 on the other side. Losers!!!!!

You are correct. For these Covid cases, it will be almost impossible to prove "causation". A player could have caught the virus at a restaurant in Utah, or almost anywhere else. But the key point is that this won't stop people from pursuing claims that are difficult to prove. It happens everyday, and in many ways, the litigation "business" often is more about "legal extortion" than anything else. People file lawsuits where they know that they have a weak (or sometimes no) case but where they feel that the defendant would rather pay them to settle instead of spending more money on paying lawyers to defend you. My point is that these waiver/indemnification forms are actually opening the door for more claims and potential litigation. Parents and coaches sign these forms not really understanding the real implications behind them. In fact, I doubt if these tournament organizers themselves understand all the implications. They only know that they need "maximum protection" and get their lawyers to send them these "over-lawyered" forms.

I coach a team, and I have been thinking about whether I would allow my team to play in a tournament which requires an indemnification. Waivers are OK for me, but asking a coach and parents to indemnify is a completely different proposition. It would be interesting if Calsouth, SCDSL or CSL asks for an indemnification. Would anyone be willing to sign an indemnification?
Click to expand...
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm a little confused after reading the agreement (perhaps that's the intent of the agreement). Since there is a waiver clause that covers even negligence, doesn't that make indemnification somewhat irrelevant? If the wronged party cannot sue due to waiver, when does indemnification come into play?
 
RayClemence said:
No one is forcing anyone to participate, it's called freedom of choice and choices have consequences. If you choose to participate and get sick, don't try to sue someone else for your choices. I agree 100% with this comment, but the reality is that when someone gets sick, and they see an opportunity to make a claim that might net them some cash, why wouldn’t they do it? In many ways, having an indemnification provision exacerbates the problem as it provides a motivation or reason for people to pursue a claim that they normally wouldn’t have. In a normal situation, a person may not bother to pursue a claim against a club or player as there is no indemnification provision (i.e., there are a limited number of people/entities that can be sued), but when I know that I have an entire roster of players and the coach and the team manager obligated to indemnify, that is a lot more pockets that I can pick from.
Click to expand...

I think the answer here also is that there is an expectation of safety. The moment a tournament starts advertising everything that it's doing to keep people from contracting the virus ("we have hand sanitizer stations! we have uv lights near benches! we have electrostatic sprayers at the main gate!") then they are representing that the grounds will be safe. While I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to engage in risky behavior outside of the tournament (Pizza Port in Carlsbad anyone?) and then claim that they had contracted the virus at the tournament, it's still a possibility.

If I'm a TD today, I'm sending out cancellation notices until summer of 2021 and part of uploading photos of your team cards will also be uploading your vaccination records.
 
notintheface said:
I think the answer here also is that there is an expectation of safety. The moment a tournament starts advertising everything that it's doing to keep people from contracting the virus ("we have hand sanitizer stations! we have uv lights near benches! we have electrostatic sprayers at the main gate!") then they are representing that the grounds will be safe. While I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to engage in risky behavior outside of the tournament (Pizza Port in Carlsbad anyone?) and then claim that they had contracted the virus at the tournament, it's still a possibility.

If I'm a TD today, I'm sending out cancellation notices until summer of 2021 and part of uploading photos of your team cards will also be uploading your vaccination records.
Click to expand...

hide in place bro, the rest of us should be allowed to make our owns decisions with our families
 
notintheface said:
You aren't. You're playing whataboutism. Just stop. The question is around a TD going forward with hosting a tournament even though they know the numbers are likely to expose people to the virus. That is high risk and I cannot imagine a TD wanting to have their text messages, emails, etc., go through discovery. SoCal cup cancelled. Surf cup postponed, again. There's a reason for this. The TDs are making these decisions because they understand the potential legal gray area they're entering into. You want to put together a tournament and invite 100 teams? Go for it! Just recognize that there is a very very strong likelihood that one or more players will contract the virus that weekend and regardless of how sympathetic you feel a judge in arbitration would be, you are extremely likely to get bent over the barrel.
Click to expand...
No..not whataboutisms....asking a question that is DIRECTLY related to your statement::

“notintheface said:
The "willful misconduct" is having a large group gathering in the middle of a pandemic. That's beside the point, though....”

you seem to be Hell bent on picking an argument and you’re picking it with the wrong guy....stand down and move on and we will both have a better day for it.
 
watfly said:
Thanks for that info. It seems to me that Utah Surf is being over the top by requiring an indemnification. Could they have just required a waiver? I'd sign a waiver in a heart beat, but indemnification, no. It ridiculous that you can sue over getting a virus anyway. We need to have some legislation to prevent that (unless it involves some form of willful misconduct), and get back to individual accountability and away from always being a victim.
Click to expand...
Not worth the risk with indemnification. If this becomes standard protocol till a vaccine to play in a tournament ALL sports wont happen if parents have a brain.
 
EOTL said:
States like AZ, TX, CA and FL have no excuse.
Click to expand...
Looks like they don't need one.

Deaths / 100,000
NJ 180
NY 170
AZ 70
FL 54
TX 46
CA 34

Based on the current Rt, NY is headed in the wrong direction and doing a worse job than all those states (see chart below). Don't be confused, though. I am wishing the best for all states whatever approach they take.

1599257580943.png
 
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm a little confused after reading the agreement (perhaps that's the intent of the agreement). Since there is a waiver clause that covers even negligence, doesn't that make indemnification somewhat irrelevant? If the wronged party cannot sue due to waiver, when does indemnification come into play?

Great question. If an aggrieved party really wants to sue, he/she can argue that, due to "willful misconduct" or some "egregious" behavior on the part of the tournament organizer or any of the other teams/players/referees/etc., that his/her waiver is void or inapplicable. Yes, it sounds circular, but there is nothing stopping someone from making a claim, even if it is meritless. Then if a claim is made, the indemnifying parties will be involved. Without the indemnification, the indemnifying parties will never be involved. At the end of the day, the waiver should stand and the aggrieved party's claim should not be successful, but not after everyone has been dragged through the mud (pun intended).

One thing to keep in mind is that most people tend to think about the "end result" (e.g., does he have a legitimate claim?), but very few people realize that the legal process (e.g., lawyers, courts, arbitrators, mediators, legal fees, costs, threats, etc.) that gets us to that "end result" is the thing that everyone should be trying to avoid. And part of the legal process is that any individual in this country who is not afraid of defending a malicious prosecution action can bring any claim regardless of what (e.g., waiver) he/she may have signed.
 
RayClemence said:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm a little confused after reading the agreement (perhaps that's the intent of the agreement). Since there is a waiver clause that covers even negligence, doesn't that make indemnification somewhat irrelevant? If the wronged party cannot sue due to waiver, when does indemnification come into play?

Great question. If an aggrieved party really wants to sue, he/she can argue that, due to "willful misconduct" or some "egregious" behavior on the part of the tournament organizer or any of the other teams/players/referees/etc., that his/her waiver is void or inapplicable. Yes, it sounds circular, but there is nothing stopping someone from making a claim, even if it is meritless. Then if a claim is made, the indemnifying parties will be involved. Without the indemnification, the indemnifying parties will never be involved. At the end of the day, the waiver should stand and the aggrieved party's claim should not be successful, but not after everyone has been dragged through the mud (pun intended).

One thing to keep in mind is that most people tend to think about the "end result" (e.g., does he have a legitimate claim?), but very few people realize that the legal process (e.g., lawyers, courts, arbitrators, mediators, legal fees, costs, threats, etc.) that gets us to that "end result" is the thing that everyone should be trying to avoid. And part of the legal process is that any individual in this country who is not afraid of defending a malicious prosecution action can bring any claim regardless of what (e.g., waiver) he/she may have signed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the posts. Worth reading.
 
RayClemence said:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm a little confused after reading the agreement (perhaps that's the intent of the agreement). Since there is a waiver clause that covers even negligence, doesn't that make indemnification somewhat irrelevant? If the wronged party cannot sue due to waiver, when does indemnification come into play?

Great question. If an aggrieved party really wants to sue, he/she can argue that, due to "willful misconduct" or some "egregious" behavior on the part of the tournament organizer or any of the other teams/players/referees/etc., that his/her waiver is void or inapplicable. Yes, it sounds circular, but there is nothing stopping someone from making a claim, even if it is meritless. Then if a claim is made, the indemnifying parties will be involved. Without the indemnification, the indemnifying parties will never be involved. At the end of the day, the waiver should stand and the aggrieved party's claim should not be successful, but not after everyone has been dragged through the mud (pun intended).

One thing to keep in mind is that most people tend to think about the "end result" (e.g., does he have a legitimate claim?), but very few people realize that the legal process (e.g., lawyers, courts, arbitrators, mediators, legal fees, costs, threats, etc.) that gets us to that "end result" is the thing that everyone should be trying to avoid. And part of the legal process is that any individual in this country who is not afraid of defending a malicious prosecution action can bring any claim regardless of what (e.g., waiver) he/she may have signed.
Click to expand...
A lawsuit can also be filed by a party who has not signed a waiver, such as someone who traces their illness to your attendance at the event and subsequent transmission to them. That’s typically the point of the indemnification clause, since the theory is you should have quarantined solo after the event for 14 days and your failure to do so was the reason someone not at the event got sick.
 
Without the indemnification, the indemnifying parties will never be involved. I just realized that the "never" in this statement is too strong. If an indemnifying party had some "causal" link to the claim (e.g., Johnny on Team XYZ coughed at Jack on Team ABC and Jack catches Covid), then they would be involved even without an indemnification. But consider the following two scenarios: (1) if there is NO indemnification, and Team XYZ played ABC and nothing unusual happened on the field and Jack catches Covid, Jack's claim against the organizer would not involve anyone on XYZ, unless Jack also makes a separate claim against someone on XYZ. (2) if there is an indemnification, and Team XYZ played ABC and nothing unusual happened on the field and Jack catches Covid, Jack's claim against the organizer would automatically involve XYZ even if Jack does not make a separate claim against anyone on XYZ. In situation (1), it is unlikely that Jack would make a claim against anyone on Team XYZ because any "causal link" might not be strong enough for a litigator to make that claim (e.g., Jack played three other teams), but the "causal link" for the claim against the organizer would be stronger because "Jack likely caught Covid at the tournament" (assuming they could argue that Jack did not engage in any risky behaviors other than playing those three games).
 
A lawsuit can also be filed by a party who has not signed a waiver, such as someone who traces their illness to your attendance at the event and subsequent transmission to them. That’s typically the point of the indemnification clause, since the theory is you should have quarantined solo after the event for 14 days and your failure to do so was the reason someone not at the event got sick.

Excellent point, and this raises a separate issue. If Jimmy plays in this tournament, returns to high school, and immediately rejoins the high school training sessions that are being held, then finds out he caught Covid. What happens if his classmate Bobby catches Covid after Jimmy returns from Utah? Could Bobby (who hasn't signed a waiver) make a claim against the tournament organizer? Should Jimmy be required to quarantine for two weeks before returning to high school practices?
 
RayClemence said:
A lawsuit can also be filed by a party who has not signed a waiver, such as someone who traces their illness to your attendance at the event and subsequent transmission to them. That’s typically the point of the indemnification clause, since the theory is you should have quarantined solo after the event for 14 days and your failure to do so was the reason someone not at the event got sick.

Excellent point, and this raises a separate issue. If Jimmy plays in this tournament, returns to high school, and immediately rejoins the high school training sessions that are being held, then finds out he caught Covid. What happens if his classmate Bobby catches Covid after Jimmy returns from Utah? Could Bobby (who hasn't signed a waiver) make a claim against the tournament organizer? Should Jimmy be required to quarantine for two weeks before returning to high school practices?
Click to expand...
It hardly seems worth it if you have to sign an indemnification agreement and get games like this:
events.gotsport.com

GotSport - The Ultimate Sports Management Platform

GotSport is the ultimate sports management platform, offering all the tools you need to manage, organize, and grow.
events.gotsport.com events.gotsport.com

I hope people will at least get a chance to visit Zion. It's worth a trip.
 
timbuck said:
What is “touch and go soccer”?
Blues on the standings. Click on the team and this comes up. With a west Coast logo.

events.gotsport.com

GotSport - The Ultimate Sports Management Platform

GotSport is the ultimate sports management platform, offering all the tools you need to manage, organize, and grow.
events.gotsport.com events.gotsport.com
Click to expand...
Touch and go is like a Toca. Is the place where this team has been practicing full contact since probably June, and they are using west coast logo just to fuck them up. Is that coach a blues coach?? That is just bad and shady someone call west coast people. If you are going to be that shady at least don’t fuck up another club.
 
Lulu22 said:
Touch and go is like a Toca. Is the place where this team has been practicing full contact since probably June, and they are using west coast logo just to fuck them up. Is that coach a blues coach?? That is just bad and shady someone call west coast people. If you are going to be that shady at least don’t fuck up another club.
Click to expand...

Dang that's messed up there are several teams using that same facility for months to "practice".

Happen to be nearby to pickup something for another business one night so I wanted to see if they where still in business.

Was surprised to see it packed, at a quick glance bunch of people waiting to enter wearing mask and some teams playing . Didn't go in but at least they are following some sort of prevention. At least 3-4 different filmilar team colors but all girls not that it matters who so don't ask but good for them.
 
I know some coaches that coach at two clubs, just saying. I dont know no nothing with this team but many reasons for anything in socal soccer. Perception and speculation makes things turn into gossip. Choice morsels for the mortal man....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top