Saw a very odd situation in a very small school playoff game the other night and wanted to get some opinions.

Team A, who is a favorite to go to and possibly win the state tourny, is down by ten points about halfway through the fourth. Team A coach has already been whacked once. The officials, even though the coach was still riding them HARD, were making every attempt not to whack him again for the ejection.

Team A coach calls a timeout for the SOLE purpose of arguing a call. The calling official keeps his composure as they are discussing this near midcourt. Team A coach does not like the explanation and loses it. Whack! Ejected. As soon as the T is called, the coach pushes the official. The official pushes him back. By that time, the other official has stepped between.

When, if ever, is an official allowed to lose that sense of professionalism? I think if blatant bodily contact is made by a coach FIRST, then the official has the right to defend him or herself. Then again, I am not sure. There is definately a grey area, IMO. Opine if you have ever been in this situation or have a thought regarding it. I am interested in knowing what actions would be taken by different state assoc. against the official, if any.

For the record, three days after the incident, the State Department of Education suspended the teaching license of the coach for one year. Personally, I think making a scene like that in the presence of children and young adults should warrant a stiffer penalty, but whatever...

I don't think pushing back can be considered a defensive act. While I understand the official losing it, it's not something you can do. :(

To stay cool, try to focus on how much fun it will be to file assault charges against the guy.

Exactly right. Back off, walk away, and write the report.

I can't speak to this specifically from an official's point-of-view, but self-defense applies only if there is a reasonable fear of immediate danger. It would be hard to argue that pushing back would be the logical act of someone who felt like they were really under threat.

So, do you guys feel the officials reaction is worthy of a suspension?

From experience earlier in my refereeing career I was refereeing an under 18s competition (when I was 16) so just abit younger than most of the players but anyway a player was not happy with a call i made and starting swearing his head off at me so I whacked him and then he proceeded similar to this situation and pushed me it took me by suprise and from what I don't regret I just walked to the bench quickly and gave a disqualifying foul. It was a blatant physical push and some how because it was a first offence by the player he walked away with a 6 week suspension that almost turned me off refereeing basketball that a player can physically push a referee when my associations official development officer is watching the game and makes a statement at the tribunal and the player still only gets a six week suspension.

My father is a cop and I regret not getting him charged for assault but anyway what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.

In this situation I think it was a very bad move the referee pushing the coach back that could of resulted in them both throwing punches although I don't think the official should be suspended he should be cautioned.

Yes, suspend them both.

I am very intrigued at what action the state assoc. will take against the official. He is from my local association and I will get the opportunity to find out. Should make for an interesting story when he has his meeting, gets his letter in the mail, or whatever means of communication the state assoc. uses for the situation.

I would agree that it was unprofessional to push back and the official should face a possible suspension. However, in that type of a situation, turning and walking away is just inviting a sucker punch. This is how assaults become serious issues. Hard to say without being there what the rationale was for pushing back, or if it was self defense, so I say the official should be at least entitled to a hearing before any suspension is given.

So...

On the court, player A shoves B, and as a reaction B shoves back. How do you assess the penalty?

In this case coach shoves official, and as a reaction that is certainly understandable, official shoves back. How do you assess this penalty?

I can understand comments that an official has the right to defend himself, but a shove, while totally inappropriate, is hardly a justification for shoving back. In fact, this tactic is almost guaranteed to escalate the situation, not exactly a defensive maneuver.

Nope, I've got bad role modeling on both parties. And I'm not sure how to assess the penalty.

As far as player a and b, they both wacked with double technicals. As far as the coach, if he pushes or shoves me, he is gone.

That wasn't my question. What about the official in this case?

He shoved back too, just like your two players both of whom you are willing to penalize. Do you also penalize the official in this case?

I never had a similar situation. (Thank God.) You'd hope that you'd react by walking away but Refs are human, too. I feel bad for the Ref. It's a good example to file in the memory bank.

I think, unfortunately, that you have to suspend the official. Just as coaches should never be allowed to touch the ref in anger, the ref should never be allowed to touch the coach in anger.

The closest I've come to this situation was last summer at camp when I stepped between an angry coach and the ref he wanted to strangle. He was a good 150 pounds heavier than I was and I had my hands on his chest, trying to keep him away from my partner.

After the game, a clinician (who did not see the incident) told me never to touch the coach. Get out of his way. If you touch him, he can claim anything afterwards.

You have to call the game off at this point. Once that official shoves back- it's over. Besides you can't expect the partner to work alone.

For what it is worth -- basically, in case anyone is coming to this forum looking for legal advice -- bebanovich's statement is simply wrong. Self defense would apply quite nicely to the circumstances described were the official to face any kind of legal action.

But while this official should be able to avoid criminal/legal penalty, I do think that he should receive discipline for his behavior from the appropriate overseeing body.

If you are correct that the official was justified in pushing the coach back under the law why should he face disciplinary action? IOW, why should he be punished for a genuine act of self defense?

Which is wrong?
Self-defense requires fear of immediate danger?
Shoving back would be hard to argue as self-defense?

I don't mind being corrected or called wrong, I just don't want to be called wrong on the implication that I'm saying something I'm not, like, "this ain't a case of self-defense" I wasn't there, I didn't see it so I wouldn't know if the official could successfully argue self-defense.

I'm not a lawyer (thank God) and I don't even act like one, so I can't speak to the legalities of what happened. I can tell a brief story from our area...summer league, HS Varsity boys with their regular coaches...coach charges official after foul call and pushes official. Official attempts to walk away...coach grabs official from behind...official (who ia a some-degree-or-other black belt) proceeds to take coach down and temporarily incapacitate coach...police called...coach arrested...ultimately coach found guilty of misdemeanor assault, forced to resign position as coach, and ended up with some kind of probation/community service. Official - congatulated by judge on his calm handling of a potentially dangerous situation.

The difference is that the official attempted to walk away and was attacked again...I don't think the official in the OP can claim that...because he pushed back, he should receive some kind of disciplinary action from the association...and then all his buddies should take him out for a few of JR's "brown-pops"...

It depends on the details of the "push-back" imo.

Normally if you're pushed, you would usually be physically moved <b>away</b> from the pusher. To have a return push, I think that one of the parties has to then close that gap between them again. If the official moved towards the guy that pushed him, and then pushed him back, that could probably be called retaliation. If the original pusher moved towards the official he pushed, and that official then pushed him away, then that's simply protecting himself, I'd say.

Sound reasonable?

i heard
 

that an officical got punched but just took and and only assessed a T because he didnt want to protect himself for fear of being suspended...

also heard that during a game a coach started shooting at a ref but he only assessed a bench T because he didnt see the coach do it and the ref who also carries a gun at all times didnt pull his because he didnt want to appear unprofessional...

those both arent true but come one guys if a coach were to push me -- and ive actually thought about this -- i would love to plant one across his noggin, but i probably wont do that, however I think I might react in a similar way and shove back -- im not gonna turn my back on a coach thats that irate and let him land one on me I am going to let it be clear to him that I will protect myself. Also in a HS game where the head coach does something like this -- I am very likely to call a DQ on the offending team.

Refs should live by John's Wayne's creed in the "Shootist".

John Bernard Books (The Shootist):
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

I loved that movie........now, Richard Boone in that movie is what I mentally imagine that Jurassic Ref looks like.

I love the self righteousness that comes out on this board. I love guys who say someone has pushed you and we are all supposed to just turn the other cheek and walk away. :rolleyes:

All anyone has to do is watch an afternoon court program and you will find that this action as described is clearly self-defense. If someone comes and attacks you with a certain kind of force, you have the right to defend yourself with similar force. The official did not pull out a gun and shoot the coach, he simply pushed him back. Which by the way we do not know if the coach kept coming at the official and the official felt threatened and finally pushed the coach. If the coach pushed the official and started to back up I can understand not having a reaction. If the coach pushed the official and kept coming, I see nothing wrong with that official getting that coach out of their face. It is not about professionalism at this point, it is about self-preservation. It is not my job to take an *** whoppin because someone might think it is unprofessional. I would never advocate a suspension of an official that is attacked and response with a similar action. I am not getting paid thousands of dollars to work these games. Of course where I am working will be a factor on some level because some places have very good security and other places do not. I am not getting paid enough to just sit back and hope I have security to protect me.

Peace

Sounds more than reasonable, which is why I question that the original sitch (coach push, ref push back) is an act of self defense. IMO it's not, it's what we call a shoving match. Maybe a lawyer could get you off, but almost certainly you're gonna need a lawyer.

IMO Rocky's example gives the correct way to handle this type of attack by an emotional coach - de-escalate & give him an opportunity to calm himself down. Whether you actually turn & walk away depends on how comfortable you are having to defend yourself, I'm sure Rocky's friend was half hoping the coach would take another run at him.

This I agree with. But the way I read the OP's post is that the coach shoved & backed off. Why? Because if I shove you & keep walking towards you to attack again you're probably going to end up on your @ss. Or at least not in a position to shove back. And certainly not in a position for someone else to get between us.

Sounds like a simple playground shoving match to me.

I've got the solution, plain and simple. When a coach came out onto the floor and chested me up, I just blew the whistle in his ear. Good and loud. He physically cringed, and I "got away", I didn't have to "defend" myself, and no lawyer needed. Those Fox 40's are great!

C'mon, where's the fun in that??! :)

Seriously, that does sound like quick thinking & a good defense. He was literally in your face & you deafened him?

More details please!

Juulie,

I agree. That "chesting up" incident peeked my interest in this Post!

One night years ago, Cheryl Miller was doing the color at an NBA Game that was attended by Densel Washington. All the announcers were commenting about how handsome he was. Cheryl said,

"He could POST me up anytime."

She is a heck of lot funnier than Billy Packer or "Yeah Baby".

Hindsight being 20/20, would you do this again?

That's a tough question, Stan, b/c it wasn't a rational reaction at the time. I didn't think it over and then act. I just tried to stop him from killing my partner. In a similar situation, I don't know if I would take the time to be rational or not. I hope I think fast enough to use Juulie's solution.

I love the self-satisfied smugness, myself.


I think there's a pretty well-respected tradition about that, which was espoused about 2,000 years before this forum ever existed. If you don't think it's worth practicing, more power to ya.

And anyone who takes legal advice from The People's Court deserves to get sued into oblivion. You want to rely on afternoon TV for legal insight, more power to ya.

That's the first comment in your post that I can agree with.

I would rather take legal advice from someone I know is a lawyer and comments on a case that has to be followed by the law, then listen to some poster with a funny name and no legal background any day of the week. Another point to make is each state has different laws as it relates to self-defense and what is proper and what is not. In my state it is legal for anyone to assault a sports official. I know in many states have no such law or special protection for sports officials so you might be on your own. I also know some lawyers that officiate games and I have heard them say that you do not have to just "turn the other cheek" when someone is attacking you. It is not like my only point of view is based on one show and one discussion on these issues. I have no problem with any official protecting themselves in this kind of situation. I was not there and neither were you to know what was done right or wrong. All we have is a 3rd hand story.

I am not an IAABO member, I do not need your agreement to validate my point of view. :rolleyes:

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 03:35 PM]

I'd have a hard time saying that responding to a push is self-defense. Suspend 'em both. Passive resistance, man. The coach hangs from a yardarm all by himself then.

What's so funny about the name Chuck Elias???

And what a surprise - the pulling out of the "it's different in my area" argument...never saw that one coming, did we?

In the situation I described, the judge made it VERY clear (so clear even someone from another state could understand it) that what made the self-defense claim work was that the official involved did not respond to the first shove, and did try to walk away.

So Rocky, I have just 1 question: was that judge one of them day time TV judges you read about on the internets?

I do not recall that Chuck was the only person claiming that this was not self-defense. Even if I referenced Chuck Elias, most people would be like "Who the hell is that?"

Self-Defense like most laws in this country fall under state, town or county law. Murder, speeding regulations, independent contractor classification are all local laws. If I carry a handgun in Illinois I will go to jail. I do the same thing in Texas and I am following the law. One of the reasons we have not had an observer’s program in my state is because of the local independent contractor law in this state would possibly violate those laws and put the IHSA in legal jeopardy. I read this forum and it is clear that there are many states that do something different because they do not face the same legal constraints as we have here. I guess those things cannot be pointed out because Rocky says so. ;)

Why is this issue supposed to be the same across the country. When we talk about playoff assignments, regular season assignments or how our associations are run, those all have "area differences?" So are you going to tell me that the guys that will be working the State Finals this year in my state got those assignments the same way they do in your state or work those games at the same time?

I do not know what state this took place in, but I will take a guess that the Judge in question had to follow law in that state. There is a reason we have a State Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court.

Peace

I have a more official answer to this question.
 

I emailed a friend of mine that is a football official and is a lawyer. I am posting his response to me when I asked him what was self-defense and what how the law might see this. Here is his answer below.

----------------------------------------------------
Jeff,

As you can imagine the answer is complicated, and in
most cases, depends on state law. In general,
however, self-defense is one defense to a civil or
criminal battery charge. "Defense" means - yes, I did
it, but it was justified because . . .

To claim self-defense, the general rule is the person
claiming self-defense has the right to "meet force
with equal force necessary to defend himself." A few
examples of what violates this limitation, if
physically pushed, the person claiming SD cannot pull
a gun and shoot the aggressor. Pushing back is more
likely an acceptable response.

A second rule of SD is that the person claiming SD
must withdraw when danger can be avoided. This
generally means that the response to one push by an
aggressor is limited. One cannot push back and then
proceed to assult the aggressor. This also means,
however, that SD may not be available as a defense if
the person that wants to make th claim could
reasonably withdraw with no further danger even after
being pushed.

One footnote, SD is a defense. In an investigation,
police generally are only interested in when a crime
has potentially occurred. If they determine a push
has occurred, they could make arrests based on that
information alone, as it is not there responsibility
to investigate defenses.

I bring up that situation because I know it occurred
in a football game. An official was arrested after
the game for bumping a coach. He was later acquitted,
but he was arrested and charged.

I hope that helps. These are some general rules.
Laws could be different depending on the state.

(My Lawyer friend)
---------------------------------------------------------

Funny this is pretty much what I said. I guess a Judge on a TV show knows what they are talking about?

Peace

This thread became a long read since I was last here … and I’m about to make it a lot longer. Sorry. (If you’re not interested in the legal stuff, just skip down to 6, 7 & 8.)

1. When I originally posted, I meant that this statement by bebanovich – “It would be hard to argue that pushing back would be the logical act of someone who felt like they were really under threat” – is wrong. Actually, pushing back is a very logical act. It may not be wise, but it is logical. What I primarily objected to was the implication that I found in bebanovich’s statement. I thought that his implication was that if a person felt “truly threatened,” he would respond with force far greater than a “mere” push back. That implication is not true. Rut’s friend’s post provides useful general guidance.

2. I was being facetious when I made the remark about people coming here for legal advice. Just so that we’re clear: self-defense is a defense that is available to a wide variety of crimes, both federal and state. Most situations faced by most people will be dealt with according to the law of the state in which a person lives or according to the law of the state in which the relevant locus of activity took place. This makes sense: if you go to CA and kill a person on the streets of Sacramento, you’ll be dealt with according to CA law, not the laws of your home state of FL. For most crimes, it would not matter whether or not you are actually familiar with CA law (which is why George’s offered defense to his boss after hanky panky with the cleaning lady was not particularly compelling: “Is that frowned upon here? If I had only known, I never would have done it!”)

3. Rut is right to not automatically assume that an internet poster knows what s/he is talking about, but we should all be reminded to not automatically assume that a lawyer on TV knows what s/he is talking about. TV law – even “reality” TV law – is just different. (And that TV lawyer may not be admitted to the bar in the state where you live.) Sometimes TV lawyers DO get it right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day….

4. As a number of people correctly have pointed out, there are details that we don’t know that “matter” – e.g., when the official’s push took place, was he going toward the coach or was the coach coming toward him? (Very reasonable, JR). We shouldn’t be too quick (I’m talking to myself here) to judge, as a legal matter or as a professionalism matter, when we don’t really know everything. Dan may be right: it must just be a “shoving match.” The old had-to-be-there.

5. Dan asked why something would be a subject for discipline if it was not legally wrong. Well, it’s because there are different standards. A depressed husband seeks out a counselor/psychologist to talk about his troubled marriage and this client and his counselor end up having an affair. The counselor likely is facing no legal trouble (although in some jurisdictions this could be unlawful), but she certainly would be disciplined for her breach of professional ethics. That’s what I am talking about. If, and this is a big fat “if” the official “went back at” the coach, I don’t think he should be in any criminal trouble whatsoever but I think he should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action for failing to meet the expectations that we have (that I have?) of the officiating profession. I remind myself again: that is a possibility here, but it may be that the official was wholly in the right.

6. I do not think that an official – or even a “regular” person – must *always* turn the other cheek. There is a time for everything, perhaps even a push back, but I do think that officials – or even regular people – ought to turn the other cheek a LOT more than they do. Non-violence most often is a sign of strength, not weakness. Let’s be strong out there.

7. Rut said: “It is not about professionalism at this point, it is about self-preservation.” Chuck agreed with him. I disagree with them. There comes a point where self-preservation enters the equation to be sure (it may even dominate the equation in certain circumstances), but I am a believer that “professionalism” is always, always at issue. How we handle ourselves when everything is going great is important, too; but we must acknowledge that how we handle ourselves in moments of crisis and stress says perhaps even more about who we are.

8. We read these forums for nuggets that will help us become better officials. We become better officials when we are “prepared” for the unexpected. Juulie’s tip reminding us of the power of the whistle is a nugget that adds substantial value. Thanks, Juulie.

Wow, I got a citation. Cool.

But here's what we all need to know: are you or are you not a day time TV judge?

Suspend the official. His actions have now made all of our jobs more difficult. We need to be held to the same (if not higher) standard of behavior.

There is a big difference between a lawyer that is actually a Judge and someone that just acts as one only on TV. Whatever you might think about my example of talking about a Court show, we can all verify their actually resume or credentials. I only used that example because Judge Mathis did not award a civil judgment to someone based on the fact that a person was legally defending themselves in a case on his show. He used the exact same language as my lawyer friend when he said, "You cannot use a gun if there is a push, but you can push someone back legally." Or he said something to that affect. There are some issues that come up often on those court shows like assaults, rental issues and loan issues. You do not have to be a legal expert to understand some of the basic guidelines that are explained on any of these shows. You can make fun of the example, but the information I gave was not something I just decided to create.

That is a fair example, but the problem is that the people making the decision might disagree with you. I know Rocky hates to hear this, but the reality is every jurisdiction might have a different opinion on what to do and how to handle this situation. I would much rather be suspended for protecting myself than getting hospitalized trying to uphold some "professional standard" that may or may not be present. I am not advocating official going out and attacking their attacker, I am just suggesting they should have some leeway and common sense should be used if we expect anyone is just going to turn away when they are threatened. Remember we had some ACC official get suspended for penalizing a player that was seen as not being confrontational when his opponent clearly got in his face. Because someone issues a punishment does not make the punishment in any way right.

I officiate to have fun, I do not officiate to have to fear for my person. I am sorry, we are just going to have to disagree on this one. If you feel it is better to just get punched and pushed and back down, you do the best you can. I am not going to let anyone feel that I am just going to sit there while you do anything and everything to me.

What Juulie says is interesting but might not be practically. If you blow a whistle in the right person's ear, they might just deck you square in the face. I do not know that I want to have a whistle in my mouth that when I possibly upset someone. Juulie is also a Women, she might not be confronted with the same kinds of people on her games as I might. These conversations are always interesting ones, but we must understand that we are not going to always agree.

Peace

It's nice to have good conversations, whether in person or on-line. This was a good conversation. The fact that we have differences is one of the reasons why we have to try -- on the court and off -- to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect their choices ... perhaps until they demonstrate that they don't deserve that benefit or that respect.

It's also nice to have conversations in which we can laugh. Dan, you made me laugh. Thanks.

Hey, if you can't laugh what's the point?

I know what I HOPE I would do if someone pushed me.

You know how kids flop? Well, I would look behind me to make sure everything is safe and would fall flat on the floor! And I'm sure "my neck, my back, my neck and my back" would be hurting. I've often thought about doing this when a Lexus or BMW does something stupid in front of me on the road (continuing on and letting their dumb action cause a wreck at slow speeds).

:D

That's a nice little speech, overflowing with pretty words and lofty ideals. Will thinking about it console you as you nurse your broken nose, missing teeth and swollen eyes? No, I didn't think so. I can well imagine that at a moment like the one the OP describes, you may just become accutely aware of how large and unfriendly the crowd that surrounds you is, and how few friends you have at that moment. Do yourself a favor, if you've never heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, look it up. "His theory contends that as humans meet 'basic needs', they seek to satisfy successively 'higher needs' that occupy a set hierarchy." The only needs more basic than safety are physiological needs (the ability to breathe, food, water, etc.). Professionalism is one of those "higher needs." When the more basic needs are met, then professionalism takes its rightful place as a worthy pursuit. When our saftey need is not met, professionalism rightfully becomes a lower priority. In other words you can shine your shoes and properly file the paperwork when the danger is over.

You could argue that people like soldiers and police are often in unsafe situations and are still expected to perform in a very professional manner. Of course these professionals fully expect to be in those situations and are trained in how to control them, to maintain the upper hand, and are armed and prepared to respond with deadly force when necessary. Hmmm, when I think about it in those terms, I guess getting my *** kicked is not very professional.

This "nugget" could be a valuable tool in the right situation. In the wrong situation, your whistle could disappear down your throat along with your front teeth.

I almost fell out of my chair. :D

Peace

I like this better than Juulie's whistle tip! I just hope my partner doesn't T me for the flop. :)

My motto, "If you can't laugh at others, well it's just no fun laughing!"

Been there my self
 

I had a game just before christmas.

It was a grade school level game and after the game was over I had the coach AND a parent right in my face. I tried to explain to them the rules I applied earlier in teh game( which of course they didn't like) but in any case I just couldn't get through to them so I motioned for them to leave because the next game of a double header was starting soon. As i made the motion, the coach pulled my arm away and at the same time the parent pushed me towards the wall. I was in shock cause you know "you hear about it but u never think its gonna happen to you kind of thing". Well I just told them again to leave but to my luck the two coaches from the next game saw what happene and escorted the idiots out of the gym.

Both of them are banned from any gym in the region where a basketball game is played

I am glad I never pushed back cause that would have just escalated the situtaion and gotten me in trouble too, but in my opnion we as refs have an obligation to keep cool and act professionally at all times. I mean can you imagine a police officer going crazy on a robber because he pushed him as he was trying to escape, it shouldn't happen.

Don't walk away blindly, turning the other cheek - by all means, be prepared to protect yourself. But nothing good can come from pushing back at the coach, so why do it?

In addition, just because you are legally justified in using force doesn't mean your association can't discipline you. It may depend on their by-laws or their judgment of what the appropriate action should be.

I know Rocky does not like to hear things about specific areas, but who is going to suspend an official for this in my area? The only body that can "suspend" anyone here is the IHSA. Local official's association has no power to tell everyone to hire you or not hire you. If the game is at the JH level, even the IHSA cannot touch an official for a game that is not in their jurisdiction. I am the Vice-President of a Basketball Division and there is no formal process for us to suspend anyone. We can make an executive board decision to throw someone out of the group, but it holds no assigning power. I also doubt that anyone in my association would have a bug up their behind because an official protected themselves from an obvious attack.

This is really why this conversation is very interesting. People try to make this issue so simple and depending on where you live any reprimand would be minimal or non-existent at best.

Peace

Being from Texas, I can tell you that it's not recommended to carry a handgun out on the court while officiating. ;)

It would seem like if you did not carry a gun in Texas, you would be at a great disadvantage. :D

Peace

Or even worse shake his head & give you the "get up!"

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge I know Rocky does not like to hear things about specific areas, but who is going to suspend an official for this in my area? The only body that can "suspend" anyone here is the IHSA. Local official's association has no power to tell everyone to hire you or not hire you. If the game is at the JH level, even the IHSA cannot touch an official for a game that is not in their jurisdiction. I am the Vice-President of a Basketball Division and there is no formal process for us to suspend anyone. We can make an executive board decision to throw someone out of the group, but it holds no assigning power...

In the conferences with which I'm familiar, however (in the Chicago area), you can essentially get "blackballed" from conference games by the conference assignor(s). The individual school ADs may also choose not to hire you and can request that the assignor not assign you for contests at their schools. As a high school AD, I've actually refused to pay an official for a blatant lack of professionalism (not a basketball official, btw). I'm pretty sure he won't be assigned at our school again. (This only happened once, and the lack of professionalism was severe - rest assured that refusing payment was the nicest way for me to handle it rather than simply ending his officiating career.)

The officials are role models and should display a level of professionalism above the players and coaches. I can understand the officials reaction, as he reacted to a new situation. But, his immediate response was not appropriate and he should not be allowed to get away with pushing the coach. The officials suspension sends a message to all officials that we are too react professionally to such situations.

Well there is an individual in this area that has displayed some very unprofessional behavior and he still works games all the time. He has also been assigned different conferences over the years at the behest of those in the area. Of course you can pass the word around, but it is clear in Chicago alone that other assignment chairmen turn the other cheek if they want to.

Also if you are an AD at a school and you are inform the assignor of a problem, the assignor might not send them back to your school, but that does not mean your "incident" is going to eliminate that person from working other places in that very conference. I personally know of many times this has happen to me and many other officials. I even know of times where an assignor considers the source of the complaint and ignores them all together. Some assignors are more concerned with their standing with certain schools and do not care about others that might complain.

Peace

Agreed and agreed! :) If the problems are pervasive, the conference may ask that the official no longer work conference contests at all, but as you say, that doesn't keep the official from working anything else in the area. I also have the strong impression that most assignors are very reluctant to work with any official who generates any more phone calls to the assignor than normal. Assigning games seems to be a pretty thankless task - especially around here where individual officials associations are not as much a defining factor.