[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust
[B]This is clearly the "Letter of the Law" vs the "Intent"

A player makes a mistake and is frustrated with themselves vs a situation where they disagree with a call.

I'm in the passing on that camp.

While I agree with your characterization of "Terrible call", isn't frustrated precisely the same as and emotional display? [/B][/QUOTE]Sure is. I really don't think that the purpose and intent behind the institution of this new rule is to punish a player that is obviously frustrated with him/herself. The technical foul is supposed to be for unsporting behaviour and I personally can't see anything unsporting in the act that Juulie described. I think that this is maybe gonna get interesting when they talk about it at the state level. Hopefully, something somewhere down the line is gonna be issued that says we are able to use our own discretion on this particular type of action. If not, this rule could turn out to be the same as another "elbow thrown without contact=T" or "OOB deliberately=T" type of rule that everyone just decides to ignore.

Gasp!

A rule everyone decides to ignore? Isn't that putting one team at an unfair advantage?

How could it possibly be doing that if you're ignoring the call at <b>both</b> ends of the floor? :confused:

Now, if you only ignore it against one team during a blowout.....

Only if one team breaks the rule, and the other one doesn't. THen you can't call it at both ends. Even so, I can't see any advantage gained by changing the jersey in the gym versus going to the locker room (or more likely behind the bleachers.)

Ok.

But, if it only happens on one end of the floor, or against only one player, isn't that a disadvantage to the other team even if you plan on calling it the same for them, but never get a chance? Or, how about after you let this one discreetly go, and 5 minutes later the other team does it because they didn't like your block/charge call? Do you not call that as well because you didn't call the first one, so you can keep things the same on both ends?

I don't disagree with your philosophy on calling things equally, 99.99% of the time. I'm just trying to find that elusive delicate balance for the other .01%.

Sure is. I really don't think that the purpose and intent behind the institution of this new rule is to punish a player that is obviously frustrated with him/herself. The technical foul is supposed to be for unsporting behaviour and I personally can't see anything unsporting in the act that Juulie described. I think that this is maybe gonna get interesting when they talk about it at the state level. Hopefully, something somewhere down the line is gonna be issued that says we are able to use our own discretion on this particular type of action. If not, this rule could turn out to be the same as another "elbow thrown without contact=T" or "OOB deliberately=T" type of rule that everyone just decides to ignore. [/B][/QUOTE]

While I would have hoped that the intent were as you say, one of the posted situations was the removal of a bloody shirt to change to a new one. The note with it said that the player is expected to go to the locker room to change the shirt....or get a T.

Why can't you accept and adhere to all rule changes?

I will accept and adhere to all rule changes as they are interpreted by my association. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

I'm not one to shy away from a T if it is deserved but I think I will give the players and the coaches a warning about this during the captains/coaches meeting prior to the game. I think I will try to explain to them that this is a rule in black and white. I think this rule is a tad bit touchy but will apply it if the board wants it carried out by the book. I'm sure someone will bring it up at most meetings and our local interpreters will be able to tell us what they think. Has this stopped us in the past with some rules? No. However, if we are directed to call it by the book there is nothing that says we can't do something prior to the game to prevent it from happening.

Tom,
I like that approach and will probably do something similar during my pregame with coaches and captains. 'An ounce of prevention is sometimes better than a pound of cure'.

Yabut..........

If you warn pre-game, then you pretty much gotta call it if it comes up <b>during</b> the game. If you don't call it, fer sure you're gonna get the other coach whining at ya saying "You told us that was a T. They're doing it and I want my T. I want it,I want it.....". The pregame warning kinda takes away your option of selective blindness. Jmo but I think that this just might be one new rule that maybe turns out as the poster boy for selective blindness.:)

You might be right. That is another approach to take. It could lead to a problem if someone is told to apply this rule as written. Some younger officials need to see what is going on so their assigners continue to gain trust. The sad part is the fact that this rule will probably not be applied consistently.

Great feedback...looks like the camps I will attend will incorporate the rule changes. One of them will have us work games with a vet, then sit and watch a game.

I really am not clear on the concept of people choosing which rules to accept and enforce and which ones not to. Since the rules committee decided that this was an appropriate rules change, shouldn't we be enforcing it? Maybe not at camps, but definitely when the regular season comes around?

I heard a similar comment from an official when the rule changed keeping the assistant coaches from getting up to talk to the table with questions. "I'm not gonna call that". Why be officials, if we're just going to make up our own rules or pick and choose which ones we like and don't like and will or won't enforce?