I always thought that one mark against the judge-umpire analogy is that lawyers could never talk to judges the way managers talk to umpires. Someone pointed out that this did not undermine the analogy. Rather, it is about established expectations and rules--lawyers and judges interact under a set of rules, while umpires and judges operate under a different set. And Weaver may have had his own set. So, enjoy.
R.I.P., Earl Weaver
My wife is an Orioles fan, who grew up in Earl Weaver's heyday in the 1970s and early '80s. And I grew up watching the original A.L. East and always found him entertaining. So Weaver's passing brought back fond memories of his famous (and infamous) arguments with umpires.
I always thought that one mark against the judge-umpire analogy is that lawyers could never talk to judges the way managers talk to umpires. Someone pointed out that this did not undermine the analogy. Rather, it is about established expectations and rules--lawyers and judges interact under a set of rules, while umpires and judges operate under a different set. And Weaver may have had his own set. So, enjoy.
I always thought that one mark against the judge-umpire analogy is that lawyers could never talk to judges the way managers talk to umpires. Someone pointed out that this did not undermine the analogy. Rather, it is about established expectations and rules--lawyers and judges interact under a set of rules, while umpires and judges operate under a different set. And Weaver may have had his own set. So, enjoy.
Catching up with Links
* I have some thoughts for SI.com on Lance Armstrong's interview on Oprah Thursday night. I was not a fan of Armstrong's showing, though I thought Oprah was outstanding in her substantive choice of questions and wording of them. The New York Times' Lynn Zinser has an excellent analysis of the media's coverage.
* An appellate court says a fan at a Royals game whose eye was seriously injured by a hot dog launched by the Royals mascot did not necessarily consent to that risk merely by going to the game. I wrote about this lawsuit - Coomer v. Kansas City Royals -- back in 2010 for TortsProf Blog. You may consent to the risk of getting hit by a foul ball, but do you consent to the risk of getting hit by a flying hot dog?
* Dan Fitzgerald on a nice and unheralded gesture by Fairfield University and its basketball team.
* Darren Heitner and Benjamin Haynes discuss one man's legal attempt to hold the San Antonio Spurs responsible for not playing its best players.
* The Manti Te'o situation is bizarre. I discuss its legal ramifications with CBS Houston.
* An independent investigation criticizes NBA Players Association executive director Billy Hunter.
* I'll be a guest on HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel Tuesday night to discuss Royce White's legal battle with the Houston Rockets. The show will air at 10 p.m. Eastern.
* An appellate court says a fan at a Royals game whose eye was seriously injured by a hot dog launched by the Royals mascot did not necessarily consent to that risk merely by going to the game. I wrote about this lawsuit - Coomer v. Kansas City Royals -- back in 2010 for TortsProf Blog. You may consent to the risk of getting hit by a foul ball, but do you consent to the risk of getting hit by a flying hot dog?
* Dan Fitzgerald on a nice and unheralded gesture by Fairfield University and its basketball team.
* Darren Heitner and Benjamin Haynes discuss one man's legal attempt to hold the San Antonio Spurs responsible for not playing its best players.
* The Manti Te'o situation is bizarre. I discuss its legal ramifications with CBS Houston.
* An independent investigation criticizes NBA Players Association executive director Billy Hunter.
* I'll be a guest on HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel Tuesday night to discuss Royce White's legal battle with the Houston Rockets. The show will air at 10 p.m. Eastern.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
