The crew did nothing...

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If it doesn't bother you if a high school player says that to you, why would it bother you if another official said that to you also?

Think about it. Or not.

Because WE are suppose to be on the same team. Sometimes your posts either deserve or dont deserve a response. I guess you do that to make a point or trigger a response. See JR's post and respond to his the same way.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Because WE are suppose to be on the same team. Sometimes your posts either deserve or dont deserve a response. I guess you do that to make a point or trigger a response. See JR's post and respond to his the same way.

If Rut wants to let high school players swear at him also, then good for him too. I have the same opinion whether it's you or him. You do NOT let high school players swear AT you EVER imo. Ther'e a big difference between swearing and swearing at an official.

If y'all want to put up with that though, hey, bend over and be my guest.

Again, jmo. If you doesn't bother you when players call you names, you sureasheck shouldn't get upset at what's said to you here either.

[DC_Ref12]

The definition of flagrant, according to Merriam Webster is: "so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality."

In my humble opinion, a player using the most obscene of language, in a screaming fashion, towards an official, represents not just a lack of respect, but in fact a desire to belittle and/or abuse. It is one thing to call a technical on a player who is using profanity out of frustration and to no one in general or very loosely directed at an official's call. It is a whole other thing to have a player "scream" the most foul obscenity at a figure of authority.

It's a flagrant on my court.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If Rut wants to let high school players swear at him also, then good for him too. I have the same opinion whether it's you or him. You do NOT let high school players swear AT you EVER imo. Ther'e a big difference between swearing and swearing at an official.

If y'all want to put up with that though, hey, bend over and be my guest.

Again, jmo. If you doesn't bother you when players call you names, you sureasheck shouldn't get upset at what's said to you here either.

But, officials dont swear at officials, so that statement and your responce is irrelevant. Please check you grammer at the end of your post. Evidently, you are upset or cant type plain english. JMO....LOL

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

But, officials dont swear at officials, so that statement and your responce is irrelevant. Please check you grammer at the end of your post. Evidently, you are upset or cant type plain english. JMO....LOL

Irony and sarcasm can be fun.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Irony and sarcasm can be fun.

Yes, did that on purpus!!! LOL

[PIAA REF]

You keep on saying we are letting kids swear at us, were not we all agreed to T them up, that is their penalty Now if they do it again then yes they would be gone. So we are not letting them do that, we just have a different philosophy on the penalty. For someone who has come across to me (on here) as a nice but opinionated guy, you my friend have been out of line on this post. You are out right trying to belittle your fellow officials. You are wrong. You in Old School are one in the same to me now.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

You keep on saying we are letting kids swear at us, were not we all agreed to T them up, that is their penalty Now if they do it again then yes they would be gone. So we are not letting them do that, we just have a different philosophy on the penalty. For someone who has come across to me (on here) as a nice but opinionated guy, you my friend have been out of line on this post. You are out right trying to belittle your fellow officials. You are wrong. You in Old School are one in the same to me now.

I understand that you would T him up, but IMO, that's an incredibly lenient punishment for such a (dare I use the adjective?) flagrant act of unsportsmanlike conduct.

I think we disagree not just as to the penalty, but to the interpretation of the word "flagrant." How would you define flagrant?

[IREFU2]

UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR
2.8.1 COMMENT: Unsporting tactics, in general, involve relationships between opponents, between the players and officials, between the spectators and officials, between the players and spectators, between the coaches and spectators, and between coaches and officials. In most situations, it does not apply to the relationship of a player to teammates, nor to the coach and members of the team. However, these standards are not without exception. For example, profanity on the part of a participant, coach or member of the team is considered to be an unsporting act, whether or not the profanity is directed at any individual or is merely a means of “letting off steam.” (10-1-8; 10-3-7; 10-4-1)

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR
2.8.1 COMMENT: Unsporting tactics, in general, involve relationships between opponents, between the players and officials, between the spectators and officials, between the players and spectators, between the coaches and spectators, and between coaches and officials. In most situations, it does not apply to the relationship of a player to teammates, nor to the coach and members of the team. However, these standards are not without exception. For example, profanity on the part of a participant, coach or member of the team is considered to be an unsporting act, whether or not the profanity is directed at any individual or is merely a means of “letting off steam.” (10-1-8; 10-3-7; 10-4-1)

This rule doesn't really back up the assertion that the original scenario is NOT flagrant. The bolded section is intended to clarify that just because profanity is not directed towards anyone in particular, it does not mean it shouldn't be called. This has nothing to do with the flagrant nature of a technical foul.

I will ask you the same question I asked the other poster. What would you consider to be the definition of flagrant? How far would this particular player have to go to get you to call a flagrant?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

This rule doesn't really back up the assertion that the original scenario is NOT flagrant. The bolded section is intended to clarify that just because profanity is not directed towards anyone in particular, it does not mean it shouldn't be called. This has nothing to do with the flagrant nature of a technical foul.

I will ask you the same question I asked the other poster. What would you consider to be the definition of flagrant? How far would this particular player have to go to get you to call a flagrant?

The rules do not say it has to be flagrant either. This is all my point is. This is a judgment call. All I will say if I ejected everyone that used profanity there are places there would be no game. But then again, I do not just get upset when I hear profanity. I address other little comments that players have no business saying to me. Then again I do not allow players to call me by my first name. So I tend to have a different set of values than most here in the first place.

Peace

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

This rule doesn't really back up the assertion that the original scenario is NOT flagrant. The bolded section is intended to clarify that just because profanity is not directed towards anyone in particular, it does not mean it shouldn't be called. This has nothing to do with the flagrant nature of a technical foul.

I will ask you the same question I asked the other poster. What would you consider to be the definition of flagrant? How far would this particular player have to go to get you to call a flagrant?

Okay, let me say this. On our board, tossing a player for that would be very questionable and the coach would have gone to others to get it overturned. You can never reproduce the emotion or the intensity of how it was said. One official may have more tolerance for such words and handle it a whole different way. Myself personally, whether its the f-bomb or any curse word, you get an automatic "t", whether its directed to me or not. Now, IF it is directed to me and you get in my face or bump me during this exchange, then you get tossed. I hope that clears up the air.

[PIAA REF]

The bottom line is that this is the officials judgement. To me this falls into the unsportmanlike rule and I would issue a T. In my state a Flagrant T would mean he is done for the night and the next game as well. I just don't see him being frustrated and verbalizing it should result in that stiff of penalty.
I will use this example. (names are made up)
Bob is really mad at his insurance agent because he thought he was entitled to more money. Bob yells at him and even goes as far as saying he is going to hurt him. Only 2 things could happen: Agent does nothing or at worst reports Bob to police and a minor infraction is assessed to Bob
OR: Same case Bob is mad and punches agent or even kills him. In what case should a stiffer penalty be issued?
Same case in BBALL frustration was shown with words (t is given) Other actions (hits someone) Goes after an official: Stiffer penalty is given.
This is just my opionion. What we need to understand that this is a judgement issue.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

The bottom line is that this is the officials judgement. To me this falls into the unsportmanlike rule and I would issue a T. In my state a Flagrant T would mean he is done for the night and the next game as well. I just don't see him being frustrated and verbalizing it should result in that stiff of penalty.
I will use this example. (names are made up)
Bob is really mad at his insurance agent because he thought he was entitled to more money. Bob yells at him and even goes as far as saying he is going to hurt him. Only 2 things could happen: Agent does nothing or at worst reports Bob to police and a minor infraction is assessed to Bob
OR: Same case Bob is mad and punches agent or even kills him. In what case should a stiffer penalty be issued?
Same case in BBALL frustration was shown with words (t is given) Other actions (hits someone) Goes after an official: Stiffer penalty is given.
This is just my opionion. What we need to understand that this is a judgement issue.

Bob should have gotten Aflac ....

In all seriousness though, I see the distinction you're trying to make, and definitely think you have a good point, there are worse situations that we wouldn't have any greater punishment for. I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Definitely some good food for thought.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

Bob should have gotten Aflac ....

In all seriousness though, I see the distinction you're trying to make, and definitely think you have a good point, there are worse situations that we wouldn't have any greater punishment for. I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Definitely some good food for thought.

how about the fact that if a player assaults an official, he's going to get more than one game suspension. Quite possibly, he'll get criminal charges. The OP calls for a flagrant T and the one game suspension that goes with it, IMO. If he goes further, then the state can determine whether there's more called for or not.