Is this curse worthy of a "T"?

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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?

Some would not only say it's not "inappropriate enough," but that it doesn't even fit the category of inappropriate at all. I'm only calling the obviously inappropriate. So, yes, it would matter if the word changed. He drops an F-bomb at his player, I'll address it. If it's just loud enough for me to hear, then I'll just have a word with him if I can find an opportunity. If he shouts it loud enough for the kids at the concession stand to hear, I may consider a T.

Personally, I'm not willing to stick my neck out for "hell."

[tjones1]

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by tjones1

LOL! I love it!