I'm not going flagrant with this either, at least as far as the example. I think it would be flagrant if the player did so in a confrontational manner, but taking the "easy approach" and just yelling while his back is turned or walking away just gets him a regular old, two-pinky T. JMO

Good one. Very clever. Now I have to acknowledge that there is NOT a specific rule provision that states that sprinting is a technical foul. (Although I could cite a case play, as you did.)

If a player sprinted onto the court in the middle of play, you'd call a technical foul. If a player or coach sprinted at you in an unsporting manner, you'd call a technical foul. If a player or coach sprinted at you in a manner that suggested disagreement with your (or your partner's) call, you'd call a technical foul. The point, of course, is not that "sprinting" alone brings the T, but that sprinting can be a factor that an official uses in forming a judgment about whether or not to call a technical foul. There is no rule that requires a technical foul to be administered for "speaking," but speaking can be a factor that an official uses to determine whether a technical foul is appropriate.

I absolutely agree that in the case play you cited, yelling profanity at the officials was the predominant factor in the NFHS's ruling that a flagrant technical foul should be called. Do you honestly not see the presence of other factors, too? Do you not see the possibility that the other factors might have been used to convert a technical foul into a flagrant technical foul?

I did not defend not ejecting "these participants." I actually have expressed no opinion on whether or not swearing at an official is, or ought to be, a flagrant technical foul. What did I do? I pointed out that the case play you cited is NOT an edict for every case of profanity being ruled as a flagrant technical foul.

An official uses her or his judgment in these situations. The case play you cited contributes to an official's ability to exercise proper judgment (so, thank you for that). I just think it's important that other officials know that their judgment is required, not an automatic application of a bright line rule.

Ah, another good one. Very clever. The fact that I can identify a personal attack must mean that I am crippled by them. That'll get me.

BktBallRef, I intend to move on to other things now, and you are welcome to have the last word. I have always considered your contributions on this forum to be valuable. I merely pointed out an error you made -- implying that your case play requires a flagrant technical foul to be called in the situation described in the OP. I think enough has been said to let readers judge whether it is my mistake or yours.

I'm going to ask this again. How is the OP different than the case play?
Is it okay for a player to do it but not a coach? Is it okay to do it during a game but not after?
If you're going to issue a flagrant after the game is over to a coach for doing the same thing, how can you justify not issuing a flagrant in the OP. The case play absolutely applies, because all the differences between the two make it even more likely I'd call a flagrant on the OP.

Oh no it's not...there have been some dandies over the past few years...this one doesn't even come close to the dumbest one ever!

Cool. A high school player calling you a "f**king idiot" isn't confrontational. Good to know that. And <b>how</b> someone tells you that you're a "f**king idiot" should be taken into account also. If they say it nicely or quietly, then the penalty should be different also.

All I'm gonna say is......disagree.:rolleyes:

Other factors <b>aren't</b> relevant in that case play. It's that simple. You're looking for excuses <b>not</b> to make the call that the case play is directing you to make.

So if the player says "Dammit that was terrible" you are ejecting on the spot?

Peace

JRut -- even I can see the difference between what you just said and what was on the OP.

What you said relates to the call and the OP was very personal with a curse word thrown in.

Nope, that's a T. There's something magical about the F-bomb, though. No, the word itself isn't an auto-ejector, but it's all but an automatic T with a very short distance to go for an ejection.
In a MS game, I had a kid come back with "I had the F-ing ball." That was a T. If it was, "You F-ing moron, I had the ball," he would have been watching the rest of the game from the bench.

No, but of course you changed the most important part of the phrase from the original post...YOU!

Dammit, you are terrible is a bit different now isn't it?:rolleyes:

You and others have said that "profanity" from a player required an ejection. We are not talking about the OP any more. Part of this conversation has even been about when and why an ejection is appropriate. We stopped talking only about the OP a long time ago. Even the OPer said that he would be OK with my point of view if I gave a T. Profanity has a very, very, very broad definition to it. I also asked this before about what is the definition of profanity and no one seems to want to answer that question. Even if the "F-Word" was used, it is not an automatic to me. Automatic to me means without thought, without any consideration of other facts and without circumstances. If people get their panties all in a bunch when someone says "always" or "never" I really do not understand why "automatic" is a better phrase for something that is never with the same set of circumstances? You do not have to answer. I just am making a statement.

Peace

But remember the Casebook which you are others are defending does not make that distinction.

5.6.2 SITUATION F:
Following the final horn in a game which has Team A leading 62-60, the coach of Team A sprints after the game officials and shouts profanity at the referee who has just left the playing court outside the end line.

RULING: The referee shall charge the coach with a flagrant technical foul and the results of the two free throws will determine whether an extra period will be necessary. The jurisdiction of the officials had not ended as the referee was still within the visual confines of the playing area. (2-2-4)

I read nothing that says the word "Damn" is different than the F-word or the C-word or any number of terms that would be deemed inappropriate.

Then we agree on some level. Even you are making judgments based on circumstances. I just take the issue with the words "automatic." I have no problem if you decide to just get rid of a player that uses certain words toward you. But do not tell me the casebook or the NF makes it clear what is profanity and what is not profanity. I also want to make it clear; I do not need profanity to decide to eject a player. There are slang terms, racial remark, personal comments that would bring an ejection likely from me and the F-word was never uttered. And it might be something that only myself and others like me would understand.

Peace

What if you or your partner were f***ing horrible that night, and you know it. Then said player verbally confirms that to you, are you still ejecting?

I guess I'm in the minority on this and thus must be a f***ing horrible official, because I'm not issuing the flagrant T.

You're right, what constitutes profanity is up to the officials' judgment. Not sure I've ever met an official that wouldn't consider "f-ing terrible" among the worst profanity available. This goes towards my question earlier, how is the OP different than the case play in a way that makes the OP, as described, more acceptable.


I said "all but automatic." I'm not going to say automatic, because I've let a coach deal with it before when a player was using the F-bomb out of personal frustration. I've allowed a coach to say "Bull Sh$#" once when he was directly quoting a player from the other team. Neither were directed at me, and the player was dealt with by the coach. No, it doesn't; but I can't think of much that is worse than the OP, unless he strung a bunch of profanity together or some how managed to go on some sort of racial tirade. Agreed.

Nope, we're saying that profanity directed <b>at</b> a referee requires an ejection. That's completely different from plain old profanity.

Would you let a player call you a "f**king idiot", Jeff?

I don't care if I set back officiating by 30 years, this comment is not appropriate and my performance level won't affect how I address it.

I never once said that profanity = ejection.

I said, and correctly so, that the phrase in the original post = ejection.

Let's look at it this way:

Profanity, by rule, is a t'able offense.

Remarks directed at an official showing displeasure about a call is also a t'able offense.

The original post had a phrase that had 2 t'able offenses in it...1 + 1 = 2 and an ejection.;)

Maybe you need to read this thread. I do not recall I said I would let anyone do anything. I think I was talking about if ejection was the only option. To me ejection is not the only option. Personally I would rather hurt a team with 4 FTs instead of 2.

Peace

Than whack him twice, bang-bang instead of one, but to keep the kid around hoping to get him again is ridiculous.:rolleyes:

The comment is NEVER appropriate, EVERY referee on this board has acknowledged that. It's the punishment that we referees will pass down according to our judgement that is being questioned.

If I have a partner who's stinking the joint up, kicking calls all over the place, then feels the need to eject a player because a player makes an comment to him regarding his performance that night, I'll probably be kicking any future scheduled games back with that partner.... A previous poster said a coach will probably appeal the ejection. The state will get your report, then a copy of the tape, see how horrible you were, and probably give a monetary reward to the player for his astute on-court evaluation of that referee. :D

We have long left just talking only about the original post.

Who said this was not T'able offenses? I do not recall a single person in this entire thread (please show me were anyone said this BTW) that said there would not be a T. I do know that outside of profanity, I would address situations and have addressed situations long before we get to the profanity. I do not allow questioning of calls period without myself saying something to the participant. Last night in my playoff game I addressed an issue with a coach and no profanity was used, but I felt his yelling was not acceptable to me. Now I know there are officials that will just allow similar behavior continue all game long and then T when the behavior has escalated. I bet in this OP this was not the first personal comment the entire night. I am sure other comments were let go and this was the height of the frustration of a player.

I am also not saying the officials are completely at fault. I am saying that these comments to not just the first inappropriate comments during the game. I have never had a player after the first call just curse me out when the call does not go their way. Usually this is something that escalates over time.

Peace

Thank you for a very intelligent discussion. If it does not agree with your way of thinking, it is ridiculous. Very enlightening.

Peace

I know you're joking, but I'm still going to answer. Like I said, I don't care if I set officiating back by 30 years. Whether I think the player's comment warrants an ejection will not be affected by how I performed that evening. If I have a bad night and my partner thinks it has any effect on how much profanity a player can use, I don't care.

If you think it's an eject-able offense, don't let your previous calls affect this one. If he's just frustrated, that's different, but the comment in the OP goes above and beyond any leeway I may have given if I'm having a bad game.

Even if it does escalate over time, and the player has been talked to or whatever, prior to the objectionable phrase, just how does that change the punishment for the offense?

That's the major hole in your argument.

The player may have had his girlfriend break up with him just before the game. He could have issues with friends...at home...drugs...any number of things that could cause an immediate reaction.

Perhaps it did build and the officials talked to him...asked the coach to get involved before he said what he said.

None of that matters to how you handle what was said, when and if he says it.

Our job is to judge the action and penalize appropriately.

There is no major hole in my argument, you just do not agree with it. ;)

Peace

Funny, I spelled out the flaw completely, you just choose to ignore it.

The hole is so big that there is an echo.

You've hit it. Just what is profanity to you may not be to me. Now in the case cited - "Whack" is all I can say. When it was said during the course of the game would not matter to me. In fact one of the few "T's" I called this year was with 26 seconds left in the game. It didn't change the result but it was earned.

If a player curses (something less than the "F" bomb) to themselves about their own failure and only they and I hear it I usually give a verbal warning to watch the language.

I ignored it because I do not agree with it and it would be repetitive to keep saying the same thing over and over again (like I am doing now). Are you someone that speaks I have to agree with? You do not address the points I make, so why are you so special?

Peace