Unsportsmanlike?

[rainmaker]

Thanks for clarifying that. I think you're right that it's not likely to happen without some contact, or some other type of think that makes it taunting. Not likely.

But Rev seems to be saying that IS what he saw, and however unlikely it may seem to be, it may have happened as he's describing. Sounds like a very judgment call. He said that it served to get things tense and people were upset by the behavior, and that he'd have done something about it. Sounds reasonable to me.

And besides, this is a lot more interesting than yet another crossword puzzle in the book a friend gave me to keep me occupied.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is always really hard to explain things through this forum because we cannot see what people are trying to describe. I understand that and this is why I have tried to clarify my position by only referring to someone just standing next to each other. I also said that I do not see how someone can just stand that close to someone without some type of contact in the process. I would think realistically that someone would push or hold to either maintain or to move someone away from that person. I am also not talking about gesturing that makes it seem like they are going to hit or contact the person in some kind of way. But if all we are talking about is someone standing next to someone, then I stand by what I have said about how this call does not pass the smell test.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by tomegun

If a play was about to happen, yes.

Right, but the OP said it was happening even when a play wasn't about to happen. That's the question. See?

[Rev.Ref63]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is always really hard to explain things through this forum because we cannot see what people are trying to describe.

The best way I can describe the posture that A1 took is to have you imagine someone standing in front of you as close as possible without actually touching you. He is staring directly in your eyes right in your face. Every time you move he moves to get right in your face again. Not beside you, not behind you, not in front of you facing away, but in your face staring at you eye-to-eye.

This is the posture that A1 took and it occurred during free throws and foul reporting, and even when coach B called B1 to the sideline to talk during a free throw on the defensive end when team B was shooting. It also occurred while B1 was on defense.

I wish I were exaggerating. You'll see that my description has been consistent from the OP.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tomegun

If a play was about to happen, yes.

This is obviously the part of the play that is under question. The entire question is about when play is not imminent, such as during the reporting of fouls or a player off the lane during the first of a 2-shot free throw...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rev.Ref63

The best way I can describe the posture that A1 took is to have you imagine someone standing in front of you as close as possible without actually touching you. He is staring directly in your eyes right in your face. Every time you move he moves to get right in your face again. Not beside you, not behind you, not in front of you facing away, but in your face staring at you eye-to-eye.

This is the posture that A1 took and it occurred during free throws and foul reporting, and even when coach B called B1 to the sideline to talk during a free throw on the defensive end when team B was shooting. It also occurred while B1 was on defense.

I wish I were exaggerating. You'll see that my description has been consistent from the OP.

I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. It is just not going to happen right now. If you feel this warrants a T, then call a T. There is not much I can say to tell you otherwise. But just keep in mind that if you do call that, you might have similar reaction to that call in real life as you are getting now. And I am not the person you have to ultimately have to answer to. If your assignor thinks that is a terrible ruling, they will make some decisions that you might not ultimately like.

And yes the level and the stage this would be called at would make a huge difference. I just got through working a semi-final football game and the first call I made was scrutinized much more than any single call I can think of this season. There were also a couple of non-calls that I was involved in that also brought some scrutiny. In this game we did not have a hold call all game; the first hold call of the game made by my Referee had the coach come unglued after a call that I am sure was a decent one. So the level you make this call can mean everything and more scrutiny based on what game you are calling on. You will have different reactions if the people that are watching see you working a post season game (rivalry, TV game, specific conference game, just fill in the blank) as compared to JH game or Freshman B game. That is just the way it is even if you think it does not matter.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tomegun

If a play was about to happen, yes.

Fair enough, but that's not how I read the OP. When the kid is on his way to the water fountain, play isn't about to happen. When we're shooting IF or TF free throws, play isn't about to happen. When the kid is 94 feet away during the first of two free throws, play isn't about to happen.

Originally Posted by tomegun

For those in support of this, do you call every unsporting act?

You ignore unsporting acts?
Or, you judge borderline acts based on the context, to determine whether they are "unsporting?"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You ignore unsporting acts?
Or, you judge borderline acts based on the context, to determine whether they are "unsporting?"

Do not take what Tommy said out of context. He did use the term "ignore." He said that do you penalize every unsporting act (no matter the severity). In other words, do you ever warn or just simply give a T every time something fits the "unsporting" portion of the rules. I would suggest that officials here do not call a T every time something "unsporting" takes place.

I can give you a great example of that. I almost never see an official call a T just because a coach complains about a call. Complaining about a call can be like Rule 10-4-1b: "Attempting to influence an official's decision." Every time a coach says something about the foul count or talks to you about consistency, they are violating that rule explicitly. I do not see many Ts for those actions unless they get to a point they have been doing it all game long. And I know many officials claim they ignore coaches when they start complaining.

Peace

[tomegun]

My point was exactly what Rut said. If you penalize all unsporting acts to include this situation then fine. However, if you don't give a T for every unsporting act, but want to make a big deal out of this I would question that. I see this in my local meetings all the time. Officials want to make a big deal out of the most specific rule - something that will probably never happen - but they can't officiate once they have to put their words into action.
I'm just the type person, and official, that doesn't have a lot of time to talk about things I would never do. Excuse me if I'm wrong about anyone - this is a general statement. For someone to discuss something for an extended period of time and then not do it is dumb to me. That is just a waste of my time and a reason why my high school pregames are often short. BSing people just isn't my thing and I feel like this situation wouldn't become this big of an issue.
I would like someone to respond to Rut about a complaining coach. Would you penalize a complaining coach just like you would penalize a player for getting/staying in another player's face and not doing anything - the situation we are talking about.


Can someone stop TO?

[Adam]

Good example, Jeff. But yet, when a coach has his player "guard" the official, that goes above and beyond the tolerance level of most officials.

For the most part, I'm in the "don't go looking for stuff" camp. But if you've got a player literally nose to nose with another player when it's obvious to everyone in the gym that the intent is not to play basketball defense as much as to play psychological offense, I don't think we can ignore it.

I'm all for starting with an admonition/warning. Tell them to stop, because it's intimidating and it's not basketball.

Now, if he's just following him around, not getting nose-to-nose, I doubt I'd do anything. Maybe it's the nose-to-nose stare down aspect of it that's getting me. That's the part that strikes me as patently unsporting. Nose to nose when play is neither in progress nor imminent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Can someone stop TO?

Absolutely unreal.
Good thing the Colts won or their kicker's woes might have topped TO's day in the news cycle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tomegun

My point was exactly what Rut said. If you penalize all unsporting acts to include this situation then fine.

I read too much into your previous question. That's what I get for trying to watch the Cowboys game at the same time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good example, Jeff. But yet, when a coach has his player "guard" the official, that goes above and beyond the tolerance level of most officials.

For the most part, I'm in the "don't go looking for stuff" camp. But if you've got a player literally nose to nose with another player when it's obvious to everyone in the gym that the intent is not to play basketball defense as much as to play psychological offense, I don't think we can ignore it.

My point is that is a stretch to assume that is an intimidation tactic.

I would not ignore it because it is a competitive match-up. That does not mean I would call a T.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm all for starting with an admonition/warning. Tell them to stop, because it's intimidating and it's not basketball.

The problem I have with that statement is that is a big assumption.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem I have with that statement is that is a big assumption.

Look, I'm not saying I'd definitely call this. I'm just saying I don't want to preclude the possibility. I'd have to be actually officiating the game to be sure.

[just another ref]

From the earliest ages of their players, when coaches teach man-to-man defense, they repeat various versions of the order: "Stay with your man!" "Stick with your man!" "Wherever he goes, you go with him!" "If he goes to the concession stand, you go with him!" (I think that last one was an exaggeration) Players routinely take their defensive position while the ball is dead, whether it be a place in a zone, or finding one's man. (Match up! Match up!) If the nose-to-nose posture is employed in a legal manner by a team during the game in an attempt to handle one or more players, I would find it difficult to deny them the right to maintain this position during a dead ball, regardless of the length of the pause.

Anticipating an extreme question, no I would not find it acceptable for a player to follow his opponent into the huddle during a time out.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref
I cannot think of an example of anything one player does being against the rules because another player does not like it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not coming down on one side or the other, but there is at least one instance of when the penalty for a player's actions is affected by the opponent's reaction.

Taunting, for example. If a shot blocker gets in the face of the shooter and starts taunting him, and the shooter hauls off and clocks him, we've got flagrants on both.

Or, even a hard personal foul that might otherwise be classed intentional could be escalated to flagrant if it results in a fight.

But the like/dislike is not the key. It is the reaction based on the dislike.

What I said was based on the post which asked "What would you say to B1 if he commented to you that he didn't like it?"