Are you kidding me... Not in my lifetime would I call that a "T"...:eek:

It just.....wont.......die.....


And the results are in....

For the T: 1.5

Against the T: 98.5

Just wondering out loud here. Someone please quote where in the rules it says that the court is an extension of the classroom. Anywhere?

Where was the poll posted? I missed it.

It is the policy of the NFHS for all high school sports. It is also the policy of, at least in my case, being from PA, the PIAA as well, and I would hope most state high school sports associations. It is also the policy of just about every school district I have ever had any kind of dealings with, as a student, teacher, or coach.

SmokeEater asked for a rule quote. You are referring to policy. Those are two very separate things. In the OP it was asked if "How the Hell did you miss Smith on that play?" This was a coach muttering something to his player. Muttering is different than yelling. Is it worthy of a T?....NO. Is it something that the policy of the school, NFHS, PIAA, TASO, OSHA, FBI etc should address? That is up to the individual school/organization. In other words, do your job on the court, and let the other people care about what they need to care about.

EXACTLY!!

I also go back to....if you go looking for trouble, it will find you!!

I don't know why I got back into this after saying I was going to stay out.

Then mechanics, which are a policy instituted by federations, associations, or assignors, have no bearing on our game. Then league policies, which are not in the rulebook, don't either. Then policies about nondiscrimination have nothing to do with the game either. So I guess we can do whatever we want, as officials (or coaches, or players), as long as it isn't spelled out in the "rules".

I honestly do care whether a coach is swearing at a player or in conversation with a player. Whether you care or not, do what you want - ignore what you want, and watch the ethics of the world come crumbling down, because everyone who is in a position of authority, who is supposed to care about these kinds of things, feels it isn't "their" responsibility. This would be the slippery slope theory.

So I take it you'd watch someone getting robbed, and do nothing to stop it if you had the opportunity without liklihood of harm to yourself, because you aren't a police officer? Yes, quite different from addressing a coach for inappropriately addressing a player, but still an example of someone not interfering because it isn't their "job" or "responsibility". Or maybe it is - as a good person... in both cases.

Whatever... ignore whatever you want to ignore. I'll still choose to address it - if it costs me games, so be it - at least in the end, I did what I felt was right - and since I have to live with my decision, and I'm comfortable with it, end of story. I did what I felt was right, which is more than many can say - most say "Not my problem..." and if they can live with themselves with that attitude, more power to them. It definitely explains a lot of the lowering of standards in our society...

I wonder how you would react (or just think) for getting pulled over and ticketed for speeding 1 mile over the limit?

Absolutely false. Proper mechanics matter in varying degrees to the people who assign games. If your assignor places a large emphasis on proper mechanics, then mechanics have a big bearing on your game.

The mechanics prescribed by the NFHS have a bearing only insofar as local organizations, assignors, and fellow officials care about them. I know from reading this forum that Texas uses very different mechanics from some of those in the NFHS handbook. Where I am, we disregard the NFHS mechanics for certain situations, like time-outs.

Mechanics do have a bearing on our game, but not simply because the NFHS says we should do it a certain way.

As my pre-teen daughter would say, "Exaggerate much?" :rolleyes:

And the slippery slope theory is one of the most common logical FALACIES in the book. Don't use the slippery slope "theory", because it almost never produces a legitimate conclusion.

This is, quite honestly, the dumbest statement in this whole thread. Please don't equate "How the he!!" with physical assault and robbery.

That's fine. As long as you recognize the consequences and feel comfortable with them, do what you have to do. If you think that the other 99.9% of us are wrong, go knock yourself out. Is it possible that you're right and we're all wrong? Absoluely. Is it actually the case that you're right and we're all wrong? Sorry, but no.

Actually, I would think 2 things:

1) I deserve the ticket, and therefore, would have no problem paying it.

and (if I was in PA at the time)

2) I would think that, if the officer was following the rules, and ticketed me for "speeding" 1 mph over the limit, except in a construction zone or school zone, that he wasn't following the rules, since even at 65, the law specifies in PA what minimum amount you must be going over the limit for officers to give you a ticket, and at a minimum, I believe, it is 3 mph at that speed (larger margin at lower speeds).

But, as I said, in #1 - I was breaking the rules, and would pay the ticket because I did so. And no, I'm not making this up - this is how I would deal with it (and did so, for the one ticket I have received in my driving career).

Lets see:

1) Mechanics are not rules - and as you youself stated, they only carry weight as assignors and associations say they do. But, the point was - if all we are supposed to follow is rules, then mechanics mean nothing, as do the other things. You can't have it both ways...

2) No exaggeration - if you take care of the small things, the larger things take care of themselves. Don't take care of the small things, and the larger things just get completely out of control, eventually.

3) As I stated, there is a large difference between the robbery example and the language. But as I also stated, they both are an example of someone choosing to not intervene because it "isn't their job" - I clearly stated that the situation indicated no liklihood of physical harm to yourself - so you would stand back and watch? That is what I get out of your lack of addressing this issue.

4) "4 million teeth can't be wrong" - a saying from a commercial. The fallacy here is that the majority can't be wrong. Not the slippery slope theory. It doesn't work in every case - but we can see over the last 40 years or so, for example, in the use of language in TV, that as we lower our standards a little more and a little more, society follows suit. Language that would be unlikely to be heard is now commonplace in many places - because of a lowering of standards.

Sigh......:rolleyes:

If only Chuck Elias was alive and well.......

No where in my post did I say that i did not care, nor that I would ignore it. I answered the question of wether or not it was worthy of a T. I never said you were wrong in addressing it. One way of addressing the situation would be to report it to the PIAA, or whatever governing body is approiate in your state. Another way would be to drop an e-mail or phone call to the AD informing him of the behavior you observed. However, I still do not feel that it is worthy of a T.

Thanks for bringing up the situation about somebody being robbed. You just happened to pick the wrong guy to say that to....because of my job, I am legally bound to intervene if something like that is happening, regardless of the likelihood of harm to myself. However, for someone in a different position, there are more options than stepping in and trying to control the situation. 911 is a great option, then write everything down that you see and hear, then be a great witness to the police and to the court when you testify. Not all situations should be handled by asserting your authority immediately.

Neither can you. You are operating with a clear lack of understanding on this, David.

This is an unjustified overgeneralization, David. It applies to some things, but it does not make your HUGE exaggeration true.

My lack of addressing that issue is because the issue is ridiculous. There's no comparison between that red herring and the issue that we're actually discussing.

Notice that I did not say the majority can't be wrong. I actually made the point that it's possible for you to be right. In reality, however, you are wrong.

The slippery slope is not a "theory". It is indeed a logical fallacy that does not yield a valid (or cogent) conclusion. You can confirm that in any introductory logic textbook.

I'm done discussing this with you, David. Not because of any ill-will, but because you are clearly not willing to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. So there's really no reason for me to add anything else to the conversation.