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

[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

[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]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

I have not worked a state final either. My ultimate success as an official is not working a state final in basketball. Working a state final in many cases is not about who the best official is, but who has been around the longest. Danny Crawford is from my state lives a town over from where I live and he has never worked a State Final either. I am sure he is doing OK.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have not worked a state final either. My ultimate success as an official is not working a state final in basketball. Working a state final in many cases is not about who the best official is, but who has been around the longest. Danny Crawford is from my state lives a town over from where I live and he has never worked a State Final either. I am sure he is doing OK.

1. What to you mean by either? Are you implying something about someone else?

2. So you think that longevity is the controlling factor? You state that with such certainty. How could anyone doubt it?

3. Danny Crawford works for the NBA. Although I'm not certain of the NBA regulations, it seems likely that he is not allowed to officiate HS games. So bringing up that name does not make a good point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. Danny Crawford works for the NBA. Although I'm not certain of the NBA regulations, it seems likely that he is not allowed to officiate HS games. So bringing up that name does not make a good point.

Danny Crawford started working games in HS in the very area that I currently live. He also belonged to an association that I have current membership when he worked HS. And I could include the very same thing with three NFL officials that belong to an association and multiple D1 officials that currently belong to associations I hold membership. They all started working HS ball and in some cases JH and rec. ball or any other youth ball. Getting to the NBA does not happen overnight. Usually most of them worked there way through the ranks before the NBA picked them up.

Peace

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

The OP described two Ts given for removing the jersey to either taunt or to celebrate immediately after the game was over. I do not even know why you even are talking about Rule 3-4-15 (even though the rule references the penalties for a T), because that is not even what we are talking about here. So how can anyone get the two confused when one is talking about penalizing a T and the other is mainly talking about not having a jersey properly tucked in? Either you did not read this thread or you are smoking some really good stuff that has you “tweeking” right now.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The OP described two Ts given for removing the jersey to either taunt or to celebrate immediately after the game was over. I do not even know why you even are talking about Rule 3-4-15 (even though the rule references the penalties for a T), because that is not even what we are talking about here. So how can anyone get the two confused when one is talking about penalizing a T and the other is mainly talking about not having a jersey properly tucked in? Either you did not read this thread or you are smoking some really good stuff that has you “tweeking” right now.

There you go again showing your below average reading skills.

The OP wrote

Originally Posted by imgrund

In celebration, two players from team A removed their jerseys. The refs called two technical fouls.

The post doesn't mention anything about taunting. You read that into there yourself. It seems more logical to believe that the technical fouls were for simply removing the shirts, not for taunting at all.

Now why would I cite 3-4-15? How about because that rule says, "A team member shall not remove the jersey and/or pants/skirt in the visual confines of the playing area. See 10-3-7h and 10-4-1h for penalty."

Notice that the penalty for this part of the rule is a technical foul as stated in the two included references. The first part is merely the rule requiring the jersey to be worn tucked into the shorts and the penalty is that the player shall be directed to leave the game. Simply having the jersey out, or even pulling it out in a non-unsporting manner, does not result in a technical foul, rather just being sent out of the game. Casebook play 3.4.15 Sit C tells us exactly that. On the other hand if the shirt is pulled out in an unsporting manner, it is the unsporting gesture or manner that results in a T, not the jersey being out of the shorts, and that is due to a different rule (10-3-7a) as I've previously posted, but you failed to comprehend that.

This seems so clear to everyone else so why are you struggling with it? Oh that's right, reading is fundamental.