View Single Post
  #148 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 12, 2017, 10:55am
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt View Post
That is what I was told they want. The wrote in the warning option because they believe A LOT more officials will be amenable to warn as opposed to going right to the technical foul. They told me that rule change was unanimously approved because it puts the onus directly on the coach after a warning and gives the crew exactly what you said, "Coach, you were warned." They want the type of warning recorded so the coach cannot say "But I wasn't warned for that!" They also give the option for both warnings to be issued at the same time for a single act. I like it.
This is just the trend that the NF is going with things like sideline warnings in football or restrictions to the dugout in baseball and softball. Nothing new here and I actually like this process. I have never liked the "stop sign" or what it does for many reasons. This is less confrontational IMO and lets everyone know what is going on as opposed to some position that can be looked at differently as if the official has a bug up their behind or has rabbit ears.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote