Thu May 11, 2017, 04:13pm
|
|
Get away from me, Steve.
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,785
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55
Good question. If not lumped together, that means we have to be specific when telling the scorer what to document in the margin.
Also, a situation I'm pondering is when the coach comes a few steps on the floor to argue---maybe not visibly and vehemently enough to warrant an auto-T for misconduct---but far enough out where it's uncomfortable to the point where in the past you'd go straight to the T just because the coach was demonstrably out of the box. Will there be an expectation to issue a warning now instead? And will officials be questioned and judged by evaluators, assignors, etc., when they choose to skip warnings and go straight to Ts? In other words, there's a very grey line now.
Don't get me wrong, I like the official warning. I think it's a useful tool. But now that it's actually there in writing, coaches will expect it ("Don't I get a warning first?") and they'll whine like crazy when we choose to bypass it.
The absolutes won't be so absolute any more. This will take a little getting used to.
|
Every assigner will have a different viewpoint on this, too.
|