Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Disagree. I don't think that proves your point in any way. These are completely different situations, and those situations need to be taken in their individual context, not together.
|
I am not putting them together. Actually I think they are rather different, but one has a clear interpretation and the other does not have a clear interpretation. What is similar is that you and others took a stance on one thing and suggested there was no such wiggle room, but in this situation there is wiggle room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
And taking the the situation in the other thread in context, the general consensus was that swearing that is audible to the stands is usually a no-brainer "T". In this thread and in this situation, the general consensus is that this is judgment call whether a "T" is applicable, and the majority of officials seem to judge that the situation does not warrant a technical foul.
|
Forgive me for a moment, I cannot go to anyone I work for and say the "general consensus on a discussion board say......" and not get laughed at hysterically for making such a comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Iow, we're talking apples versus oranges here, and this situation has got squat to do with the situation in the other thread.
|
They are not directly related, but one has a clear interpretation that it is illegal, the other is implied by interpretation, but does not make it clear what words violate the profanity rules. Which is why I asked why is "Damn" not considered an "automatic" T as well. It is profanity. But this situation with the jersey was covered by rule very specifically, but some (including me) would not call this in that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
And as for "juice", I'm talking about the consensus of the majority re: how the play is called, not how one individual might call it. You're always gonna get...that guy. 
That's my take on it. |
Again, I cannot go to the people in my area and talk about consensus here. But there are officials that have a certain background or proven history that if they did a "talk to" in both situations, they would get away with it fine. In some circles I would be fine, in others I might get in trouble (even when it applies to two different State Final officials in the very same game). Which is why I asked about the context the player did or said what they did.
Peace