Just Wondering??

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by dblref
I also discussed this with the site manager and they said the team would not be invited back. I think this punishes the players, not the coach.

Yes, it punishes the players, but it also brings the situation to the attention of the parents, and will increase their willingness to deal with the situation. At least I would hope it would!!

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Yes, it punishes the players, but it also brings the situation to the attention of the parents, and will increase their willingness to deal with the situation. At least I would hope it would!!

I'll bet the site manager doesn't say much to anyone but the coach, and the coach will tell all that the site wasn't any good. "And that's why we aren't going back!"
There is no justice for the wicked.

[Richard Ogg]

I must confess that I'm not sure how I'd respond, but I'm reasonably sure the coach just bought a T.

The question I have is about tossing a coach. There have been a couple of times I'd like to toss a player, but I couldn't really see "flagrant" in the situation. (I equate flagrant with fighting it seems.) I know of no way to toss either a player or coach without a flagrant technical. Since I don't have my rule book handy, how do you justify the flagrant by the book? If you just give them a technical and tell them they're gone, it seems they can argue against that with the book on their side. (Ignore that arguing could be a second technical; this seems that things are getting way out of hand.)

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Richard Ogg
I know of no way to toss either a player or coach without a flagrant technical. Since I don't have my rule book handy, how do you justify the flagrant by the book? If you just give them a technical and tell them they're gone, it seems they can argue against that with the book on their side.

You've got it reversed. If the technical is of such proportion that it demands an ejection by itself, then it IS flagrant.

When you whack them, tell them the T is flagrant and that they are outta here. Then make the baseball umpire tossing motion. Believe me, it's the most fun you can have out there.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

You've got it reversed. If the technical is of such proportion that it demands an ejection by itself, then it IS flagrant.

When you whack them, tell them the T is flagrant and that they are outta here. Then make the baseball umpire tossing motion. Believe me, it's the most fun you can have out there.

Agreed. You make the decision as to whether the action warrants flagrant T or not. If you just give them a technical and tell them they're gone, you've just called a flagrant T. No further justification is needed.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Richard Ogg
Since I don't have my rule book handy, how do you justify the flagrant by the book?

4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be ... a technical non contact foul which displays unacceptable conduct... If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.


I think of this as emotional damage, in the same way that a punch is physical damage. Such as the N word, or the B word (referring to females). Some people put the F word here and call it an automatic DQ.

[Richard Ogg]

Originally posted by rainmaker

4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be ... a technical non contact foul which displays unacceptable conduct... If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.


I think of this as emotional damage, in the same way that a punch is physical damage. Such as the N word, or the B word (referring to females). Some people put the F word here and call it an automatic DQ.

This makes good sense to me. I think that most of the experienced officials in my area are pretty thick skinned with respect to these types of things (i.e., vocabulary). A lot of local officials will ignore the F word depending on how or toward whom it is used. The gender comment is certainly abusive, but I don't remember this topic ever being discussed at any of our meethings. Thus it didn't stick in my mind very firmly.