The crew did nothing...

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

In my opinion, I would have not given flagrant, just an unsportsmanlike T. He should have been stuck. I would have done it immediately.

Who asked for your "opinion?" It's in the case book.

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 guess the NFHS must be wrong.

[REFVA]

I guess the NFHS must be wrong. Bktballref

Go get em BKTBALREF. Why write the rule if we as officials don't follow them. Maybe moving forward they don't need referees and do pickup ball.

Why do we go to camps, attend training, take test to test us on the knowledge of the rules. If we leave it to the interpretation of each individual official then why have rules? Let's make them up as we go along... This is why we as officials get scrutnized. We are not consistant. This should be across the board. Not just leave it to the local association either. IMO

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Who asked for your "opinion?" It's in the case book.

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 guess the NFHS must be wrong.

Its a free world, last time I checked, I had an opinion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Its a free world, last time I checked, I had an opinion.

I want to know, what is profanity? Profanity means different things to different people. Is the word "Damn" a profanity that needs an ejection? Is the term "Jesus Christ" deserve an ejection? Is when someone says, "Pissed" require an ejection?

I am not saying this to start a major debate. I am saying this because it is very clear that we will all never agree with profanity is. I might have a player call me a name that is not at all considered profanity, but might result in an ejection because it has other meaning that are more direct or personal. This is why I do not have a "one size fits all" solution. I guarantee if I change some words the people that have a zero tolerance which results in ejection might change their tune just a little. I think this is also why the NF does not say what is or is not profanity.

Peace

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I want to know, what is profanity? Profanity means different things to different people. Is the word "Damn" a profanity that needs an ejection? Is the term "Jesus Christ" deserve an ejection? Is when someone says, "Pissed" require an ejection?

I am not saying this to start a major debate. I am saying this because it is very clear that we will all never agree with profanity is. I might have a player call me a name that is not at all considered profanity, but might result in an ejection because it has other meaning that are more direct or personal. This is why I do not have a "one size fits all" solution. I guarantee if I change some words the people that have a zero tolerance which results in ejection might change their tune just a little. I think this is also why the NF does not say what is or is not profanity.

Peace

Any curse word will get you a "T" from me. Da*mn, A*s, F*ck, Sh*t, all of the list ones that you are not suppose to use in the company of adults and/or children. Think of the curse words you used when you were growing up as a kid and would get a whipping for. This goes for coaches as well.

[stmaryrams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I want to know, what is profanity? Profanity means different things to different people. Is the word "Damn" a profanity that needs an ejection? Is the term "Jesus Christ" deserve an ejection? Is when someone says, "Pissed" require an ejection?

I am not saying this to start a major debate. I am saying this because it is very clear that we will all never agree with profanity is. I might have a player call me a name that is not at all considered profanity, but might result in an ejection because it has other meaning that are more direct or personal. This is why I do not have a "one size fits all" solution.

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.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Who asked for your "opinion?" It's in the case book.

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 guess the NFHS must be wrong.

BktBallRef, with all due respect you can't cite the casebook 5.6.2 Situation F as "requiring" a flagrant technical foul if a kid "shouts profanity at the referee." Just like casebook 5.6.2 Situation F does not "require" that an official assess a flagrant technical foul against anyone who "sprints after the game officials." What if a coach "sprints after the game officials" after the game and says "Hey, just wanted to let you guys know you did a hell-of-a job tonight"? "Thanks, Coach, now hit the showers and you can't coach next game either"?! Of course not. The casebook situation that you cited requires an official to assess all of the factors in play and make a judgment within both the letter and spirit of the rules.

I'm not suggesting that your opinion/judgment that a flagrant technical foul should be assessed against a player who shouts profanity at an official is necessarily wrong, just pointing out that this is a result of opinion/judgment, not a NFHS edict.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

this is a result of opinion/judgment, not a NFHS edict.

"The official shall" sure reads more like an edict than an opinion to this student.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

"The official shall" sure reads more like an edict than an opinion to this student.

DC_Ref12, would you call the flagrant technical foul against the coach who sprinted up to you after the game to say you did one hell-of-a-job or you did a damn good job? That has the "sprinting" element and the "profanity" element. Is that an NFHS edict? The reason why officiating basketball is difficult is because judgment is so often (as in, constantly) exercised. I'm just pointing out that that is true when someone is swearing, too.

I agree that the official "shall" call the flagrant technical foul IS an edict in situations "as described in the case play." It is not an edict for all other situations involving some elements of the case play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

BktBallRef, with all due respect you can't cite the casebook 5.6.2 Situation F as "requiring" a flagrant technical foul if a kid "shouts profanity at the referee." Just like casebook 5.6.2 Situation F does not "require" that an official assess a flagrant technical foul against anyone who "sprints after the game officials." What if a coach "sprints after the game officials" after the game and says "Hey, just wanted to let you guys know you did a hell-of-a job tonight"? "Thanks, Coach, now hit the showers and you can't coach next game either"?! Of course not. The casebook situation that you cited requires an official to assess all of the factors in play and make a judgment within both the letter and spirit of the rules.

I'm not suggesting that your opinion/judgment that a flagrant technical foul should be assessed against a player who shouts profanity at an official is necessarily wrong, just pointing out that this is a result of opinion/judgment, not a NFHS edict.

The case play clearly states that the coach shouts profanity at the officials and that the penalty is a flagrant T foul.

It's moronic to read that play and think the T should be called because the coach sprinted after the officials.

I think the NFHS is very clear on those point. It's officials who refuse to penalize properly that add to the deterioration of the game and make it more difficult for those who call the game correctly. Officials such as yourself who refuse to penalize this properly are a huge part of the problem.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's moronic to read that play and think the T should be called because the coach sprinted after the officials.

Here's why I don't think it is "moronic" to include the sprinting to officials as part of the ruling. That act -- sprinting at someone -- is a purposeful act. It communicates to anyone who sees it that there is something urgent and compelling going on; and, from the perspective of the officials, when someone sprints at them, they would have no way of knowing what is about to happen (and not much time to react, in any event). You follow up that purposeful action with a second purposeful action -- yelling profanity at the official -- and you now clearly have an individual who is out of control. Those two purposeful acts (both judged as unsporting), taken together, clearly deserve a flagrant technical foul. My point is that it would be inappropriate to apply that case play as REQUIRING a flagrant technical foul when only some of the elements are present.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's officials who refuse to penalize properly that add to the deterioration of the game and make it more difficult for those who call the game correctly. Officials such as yourself who refuse to penalize this properly are a huge part of the problem.

I forgive you -- not that you asked for forgiveness -- for (a) jumping to a conclusion about how I call the game, as opposed to officials who call it "correctly," and (b) turning this into a personal attack. I find it ironic that in a thread in which we are discussing how absolutely unacceptable it is for players (and coaches) to personally attack/question officials, to find that officials are doing it to each other....