Soooo...what's "the other side of the coin" that you can see in this?

worst technical ever
 

You guys are reading to deep into this.

Read the very first post. The poster never mentioned that he was cursed at.

My final words to this topic.

Thank you fellow Officials

I don't see why cursing matters in this situation. The new rule clearly states that a player pulling their jersey out in the confines recieves a T. This is just as clear as a player using profanity is a T. Both would need to be called regardless of the game situation. We enforce the rules as written. If we don't agree with a rule, maybe we need to take steps to get it changed in the off season.

Because the original situation took place before that particular rule went into effect...

I didn't get that from the OP. Now it's no brainer.

Junker, if ref'n were based solely on absolutes then I should be calling a lot more techs.

I know I haven't called a tech everytime I heard a curse word on the court. Now, yes, an overwhelming majority of the time I have, but can you honestly say that everytime you've heard a curse word uttered that you've called a tech? I have had situations where I've heard players curse at themselves for making a bad play. I've gone up to them and said "I know you're just frustrated with yourself but you can't use that language out here". Now, by the book I should be calling a tech everytime that situation occurs, but I don't and until someone who signs my paycheck tells me I'm wrong for doing so I will continue handle similar situations that way.

I think that's the point Ref_Fred is trying to make. There may be a situation where by the letter of the rulebook you are supposed to called a tech, or foul, or a violation, but you choose based upon your particular game management philosophy to pass.

I am in no way passing any kind of judgement on the PIAA game, I didn't even read that entire post. I'm just addressing your point concerning absolute T's.

In the PIAA game, the player cursed <b>at</b> the official. That's the absolute that everybody has been responding to. Where do you stand now? Is that an absolute "T" or not?

I think the question now is whether an official could ignore the shirt pulling at the end of a game. I'd say, given the POE, that he probably shouldn't. As Junker said, take care of that early in the season and it won't happen in the post season.
Even before the POE, this call could have been made with justification. Pulling your shirt out seems to me a half-a$$ way of "restraining" yourself. If you're going to walk away, do it without the theatrics.

Huh???

Guys, I'm confused now. :confused: Have you seen the POEs for 2006-07? I just checked the nfhs website and only the topics are listed. There are no details given. Specifically, it has the following enumerated:
1. Concussions
2. Uniforms
3. Time-outs
4. Intentional Fouls
5. Rule Enforcement/Proper Signal Use

I can't find anything else about the new POEs. Did I miss something?
The post which I made earlier in this thread is from LAST season's POEs (2005-06).

I understand your point here, but there's a huge difference between a travel and a technical at a late point in the game. Violations are part of the game and they are black and white, requiring much less judgement than do techs. The problem with the POE is that it removes the ability of the official to use proper judgement and to take into account all of the variables of a situation. One of the main purposes of the T is to allow the officials to gain and maintain control of the game.

In the situation described, we're down the stretch of a state championship game in a tight contest. These teams have worked for 5 months to get to this level and this game, and good officials will have that in mind, because emotions can be magnified on such a stage. I know the T was for cursing, but had it been for pulling up the jersey, that T would be gratuitous and over officious in my mind. What is gained from the T there in terms of game control? Likely nothing, and at worst, the T could cause the roof to cave in. An official with good judgement here turns and walks away, especially since the player had already fouled out, knowing that there could be an emotional reaction, not anticipating the emotional reaction and responding with a T.

Does that mean that we should throw out the rulebook? No, but we should bear in mind why we call technicals to begin with, the primary reason is to maintain control/improve the conditions of the game. This T does neither in my mind.

Then you may want to reconsider working NFHS basketball games. Whether you are a fantastic official or not, if you aren't willing to call what the Federation wants, then this merits some thought. There are other levels and systems of basketball which you could work and be more free to handle these situations in the manner you please.

Well, it certainly seems that you are advocating just that. How else can one take your recommendation that the official should turn away from this? BTW this is exactly the opposite approach that the NFHS is telling its officials to take.

I again point to the 2005-06 POINTS OF EMPHASIS, which contains the following directives:

"1. Sporting Behavior. ..... Specifically, the committee wants the following addressed:
A. Uniforms: Players are increasingly using their uniforms in unsporting ways. ... pulling the uniform out of the shorts in an emotional display; and removing the jersey either on the court or near the team bench, especially after a disqualification.

... Coaches bear a great responsibility in ensuring uniforms stay on team members. Officials must enforce the rule."

Please notice how what is in red and blue directly conflicts with your opinion.

Again, these are not my words, but those written by the NFHS Rules Committee. They, not we, are the boss when it comes to NFHS basketball.

Nevada, I understand where you're coming from. My point originally was that this is a terrible POE because it advocates officials being overly officious and can put us in situations where we might be forced to call a technical which does nothing to help the game and, in fact could really hurt the game. Overly officious POEs have been, in my opinion, a disturbing trend in NFHS over the last several years. For instance the POE last year on flopping, and the one to call Ts for running off the court (before the rule change to violation). Why Fed wants more Ts and trusts the judgement of officials less is beyond me, but in the real world, calling these things can often put game officials on an island. The new uniform regulations are yet another example of those in the Fed office making it tougher on us to do our jobs.

That being said, as an official, do I deliberately disobey what the NFHS says and go by my own rules? No, I call the game as I am instructed to by my assignors. Does that mean I have to like what I'm told to do and the new rules? No, but I'm an official, not an assignor, and not on the rules committee, so I call the game the way my superiors want it called. Doesn't mean I have to agree though with everything that comes down from the higher ups.

One other point, much of officiating has to deal with the spirit and intent of rules, as you well know. Rulebook officials often get in all sorts of trouble with players and coaches and routinely manage to lose control of games (at least those who I've seen). It seems like with the POEs, the rules committee wants us all to move in the direction of being rulebook officials, which I strongly disagree with.

By not penalizing bad sportsmanship, you are costing the team that maintains composure. I hate this "don't want to be deciding the outcome" crap. If it's a T 3 minutes in, it's one with 3 seconds left. Just make sure it's the right call you can defend.

Excellent post! I agree 137%.

Worst technical ever
 

I'm going against my better judgment here. In my earlier post I said I have nothing else to say. I also know that this is a good forum for each and everyone of us to share our expereinces and knowledge. I 200% agree with
SMEngmann posting.

let me describe a similar situation with a speeding ticket.
How many of you have gotten a speeding ticket and warranted, yet you tried to get out of it by making some excuse. Maybe the police officer listened to your excuse and maybe not. Some of us may have gotten away without a ticket. The officer looks at your DMV records to which they have access to. So if you were a repeated speeder you got a ticket. Same goes for this player. If this player was a kid that was known to be a repeated offender than he diserved it. This may have been his first offense.

So going back to what I said and SMEngmann vaalidated. Look at the whole situation.