What's the call - technicals at the end of the game

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My response to your post is:

Right back at you, you arrogant @^#(&*.

Actually I feel it is very arrogant to talk about what people should do as it relates to the NF all the time. For one I know every time a coach complains to you or tries to influence your calls, you are not calling a T every single time it happens. And I have yet to either work or watch a game where that did not happen on some degree and I know you have more sense then always have a T the first time it happens. So please do not try to tell us what we should call when you have even here referenced rules then talk about the reality of what you would really do.

Peace

[Idaho]

People who argue on internet message boards are funny.

[Mark Padgett]

Silly monkeys.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Idaho

People who argue on internet message boards are funny.

I would not call it an argument. I personally could give a damn what anyone here does. I will only work with one person that is on this board and that took place tonight for my first HS game of the year. You could go out and burn the NF book, you will not upset me one bit.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

There goes our guy iRut again changing the subject to deflect the argument once he knows that he is losing the point. Let's get back on point.

This topic is not about discussions with coaches, it is about enforcing a clear rule when players/team members remove their shirts within the visual confines of the playing area. There is no discretion required. It either happened or it didn't. The NFHS made it very clear that this rule shouldn't be ignored under any circumstances when making the change back in 2005-06.

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS
JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1h): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn't require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.


Of course, officials such as yourself who lack rules knowledge and just do as you please on the court will certainly have trouble with such things.

PS You're not only arrogant and ignorant, but you're condescending too.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You could go out and burn the NF book, you will not upset me one bit.

That's because he doesn't read it anyway.

PS Can anyone recall the names of some past groups of people that burnt books?

[JRutledge]

You cannot have it both ways. You said that officials cannot pick and choose what rules to enforce. I have only seen one player actually pull out their jersey in a game I was working (during a post season game and my partner called a T on the player appropriately as he was complaining about a call). I see coaches violate Rule 10-4-1b all the time in some way shape or form. These two things are under the same rule and if one is so important, the other should be held at the same level of importance if we use your logic. And that means that they have to be called no matter when they take place. That is not changing the subject that is using a comparison. Now as I said before, I do not work for you so I personally could give a damn if you call 80 Ts in a game. I will not be around for the fall out.

Peace

[Idaho]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would not call it an argument. I personally could give a damn what anyone here does.
Peace

I guess your posts, their frequency, and tone, just suggest otherwise to me.

For example, if you really didn't give a damn, I wouldn't expect you to reply to this post. But I won't be surprised when you do.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can anyone recall the names of some past groups of people that burnt books?

uh.........The Book Burners?


(I couldn't recall, so I guessed)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Idaho

I guess your posts, their frequency, and tone, just suggest otherwise to me.

For example, if you really didn't give a damn, I wouldn't expect you to reply to this post. But I won't be surprised when you do.

I respond because the purpose of this board is to discuss issues. And tone is very hard to convey when you are not talking to a person in person. Maybe for you a disagreement in philosophy is an argument, but for me this is just another discussion. Believe me I will likely never meet most of the people on this site because I am not moving and they are not moving anytime soon.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see coaches violate Rule 10-4-1b all the time in some way shape or form. These two things are under the same rule and if one is so important, the other should be held at the same level of importance.

I humbly submit that most of 10-4-1 is much more of a gray area than the part about removing the jersey. After all, being "disrespectfully addressed" can be in the eye of the beholder. When a coach "rises from the bench and uses gestures," sometimes he really is simply trying to communicate some point to his team.

"Removing the jersey within the visual confines of the playing area," on the other hand, is totally unmistakable, is it not? When combined with the above mentioned quote, "The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances," I see very little wiggle room in this particular part of the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

"Removing the jersey within the visual confines of the playing area," on the other hand, is totally unmistakable, is it not? When combined with the above mentioned quote, "The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances," I see very little wiggle room in this particular part of the rule.

I did not say it is unmistakable, I said I would not be around to find out. There is a difference in ignoring a rule and not being around to make sure there is an obvious violation. I do not call any other violation or foul that I do not see. If I am heading for the locker room and in some cases trying to avoid fans running onto the court (which is about the only way I can imagine a reaction from players that would be seen as taunting) then my focus is not going to be on those players. My focus is to get off the court as quickly as possible so that I or my partners are not confronted in a way that we might have to take all kinds of actions that are not necessarily in the rules. And there is a difference in not calling something that you clearly see and not looking for something to call either. And if you listen to any successful official in any sport, they will advocate to call the obvious and not to be so technical that you have no wiggle room. The last time I checked Nevada is not of that stature.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The last time I checked Nevada is not of that stature.

How do you check that?



And why would you want to?

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge
I see coaches violate Rule 10-4-1b all the time in some way shape or form. These two things are under the same rule and if one is so important, the other should be held at the same level of importance.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I humbly submit that most of 10-4-1 is much more of a gray area than the part about removing the jersey. After all, being "disrespectfully addressed" can be in the eye of the beholder. When a coach "rises from the bench and uses gestures," sometimes he really is simply trying to communicate some point to his team.

"Removing the jersey within the visual confines of the playing area," on the other hand, is totally unmistakable, is it not? When combined with the above mentioned quote, "The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances," I see very little wiggle room in this particular part of the rule.

The problem is that once again iRut is working from a faulty assumption. He does this frequently. He will state a falsehood and then attempt to derive his point from there, not realizing that one cannot logically deduce truth from untruths. But let's not talk about his lack of logic, debating skills, or education. Let's focus upon the specific contention that he makes.

He seems to think that removing a jersey falls under the same rule as pulling a jersey out of the shorts in an emotional display.
Not surprisingly he is incorrect. There are separate rules which apply to each of these actions.
The removal of a jersey is covered by 3-4-15, 10-3-7h, and 10-4-1h. While the unsporting display of emotionally pulling the shirt out of the shorts is governed by 10-3-7a and 10-4-1e. In the latter case it is the gesture indicating resentment, objection, or disgust that is of importance. That is certainly a discretionary area and judgment is required in deciding whether or not a technical foul should be assessed. However, in the former case, it is crystal clear that the jersey has either been physically removed or it hasn't. No judgment is required and the reason why is of no consequence. The rule simply applies under all circumstances.
Two completely different situations.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if you listen to any successful official in any sport, they will advocate to call the obvious and not to be so technical that you have no wiggle room. The last time I checked Nevada is not of that stature.

Hey, I'm much taller than Chuck.

Oh, perhaps he is making a conjecture about my officiating level.

In that case do two things:
1. refer to his earlier words:
"Actually you have no idea what I do. You will never work with me."
He sure doesn't practice what he preaches!

2. Ask him how many state championship games he has worked.