Is this curse worthy of a "T"?

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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.

[Larks]

Originally Posted by BigTex

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!!

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by BigTex

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.

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...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Then mechanics, which are a policy instituted by federations, associations, or assignors, have no bearing on our game.

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.

Whether you care or not, do what you want - ignore what you want, and watch the ethics of the world come crumbling down,

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?"

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.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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...

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

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.

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

3) so you would stand back and watch? That is what I get out of your lack of addressing this issue.

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.

4) The fallacy here is that the majority can't be wrong.

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.

Not the slippery slope theory.

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.

[Adam]

David, the point isn't that mechanics and policies don't matter. The point is that you can't call a T for a violation of policies if it isn't spelled out in the rules. Example?
Most states have a rule for how many quarters a player may play in a given day. Let's say you're doing a JV/Varsity double header, and A45 plays all 4 quarters of the JV game. Then he suits up for varsity, and you know for a fact that he played in at least 3 quarters; violating the state's policy of a maximum 6 quarters per day. You going to call a T because he violated state policy?

The point is you can only call a T based on the rules, not policies. Policy violations need to be handled off the court after the game by the proper authorities.

And yes, before you ask, if a coach was physically assaulting a player during a game; I'd likely intervene.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

David, the point isn't that mechanics and policies don't matter. The point is that you can't call a T for a violation of policies if it isn't spelled out in the rules. Example?
Most states have a rule for how many quarters a player may play in a given day. Let's say you're doing a JV/Varsity double header, and A45 plays all 4 quarters of the JV game. Then he suits up for varsity, and you know for a fact that he played in at least 3 quarters; violating the state's policy of a maximum 6 quarters per day. You going to call a T because he violated state policy?

The point is you can only call a T based on the rules, not policies. Policy violations need to be handled off the court after the game by the proper authorities.

The point is - the rules specify a technical foul for inappropriate language, and for unsportsmanlike conduct. They do not specify a T for the situation you specified above. The situation I mentioned is inapproprite language addressed from an adult to a player. This situation is covered by the rules, and supported by the policy of the various associations that specify that the sports are extentions of the classroom.

The debate seems to be more along the lines of "Is this inappropriate enough to count for a technical foul?" - Some say yes, some say no... if it was "muttered" loud enough for both officials to hear it... I would say it is loud enough and inappropriate enough to address. Substitute various other inappropriate words for the one that was used, and does that change your decision? Should it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

And the slippery slope theory is one of the most common logical FALACIES in the book.

Sigh......

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

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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...

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.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by BigTex

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.

That's fine, and that's your choice. You have a choice in the game. But I am referring to someone who is not legally bound to act. You can choose to stand and watch it happen, or you can choose to intervene in various ways. You could physically attempt to stop the person, or you could call 911, or you could make a lot of noise to try to scare them off, throw things at them, etc.

Or you could choose to ignore it, as it isn't your "job" to address it in any way, which is what I am saying that people who choose not to address the coach speaking inappropriately to his players in some way. T or not? Maybe/Maybe not - I have said before I would have trouble giving the T myself - but I have also said I would not just ignore it - I would say something to the coach. If he snapped at me, I could consider a T, or just wait until he did something worthy of one and hit him with it then.

I honestly don't see how any intelligent person could defend himself in front of any kind of school board, review board, or the public, saying it was appropriate of him to swear to or at players for things they did or didn't do - honestly, I would hope any school board would send that coach packing if the coach felt that was an appropriate way to deal with students.