The crew did nothing...

[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....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

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.

Please site the rule that states sprinting is a technical foul.

The technical foul is for yelling profanity at the officials. Do you honestly not see that?

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....

What conclusion am I suppose to "jump to" when you defend not ejecting these participants?

BTW, if you think that was a perosnal attack, you must have a tough time on the floor.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Please site the rule that states sprinting is a technical foul.

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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The technical foul is for yelling profanity at the officials. Do you honestly not see that?

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?

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

What conclusion am I suppose to "jump to" when you defend not ejecting these participants?

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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

BTW, if you think that was a perosnal [sic] attack, you must have a tough time on the floor.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

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?

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