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

I am a beginning referee and wanted a professional opinion on what to do in this situation.

I was watching a Tournament Championship game today. With the score 40 - 40, team A made a three-pointer which ended the game. Team A won 43 - 40.

But hold on...

In celebration, two players from team A removed their jerseys. The refs called two technical fouls. Team B shot and made all four shots winning the game 44 - 43.

In terms of rules, I know this this indeed calls for a technical foul. I also know that the official's jurisdiction does not end until they leave the visual confines of the court.

With that being said, I believe that in that situation, I would have walked over to the scoring table, signed the sheet, and immediately left the gym, with my back to the court. I felt as if this procedural foul did not affect the game, and thus, shouldn't have an effect on the outcome of the game.

Would I have made the right choice here? What other options are there? What would you have done in this situation?

In reality.....is the words WOW too much?
 

I would simply say to you, in reality I do not know why an official would put themselves in such a trick bag and call this. The game is over, leave the court.

Also as a new official, you need to know that you do not want to go right to the book and sign it. The score is approved when the officials leave the floor. You do not ever want to go to the table and sign anything. This is going to get you in more trouble than it is worth. If the officials on this game just left and stopped trying to witness what everyone was done, the game would have been over. Even though they might have been completely right by rule, they were completely wrong with common sense and philosophy. When the game is over I get the heck off the court, I do not want to even know what players or coaches do at that point. They are not handing out candy.

Peace

To me, it would depend on when the shirts came off. As the buzzer sounded, did the players run onto the floor, ripping their shirts off? Or was it 5 minutes later and the refs were standing talking to the scorekeeper about their kids' graduation party?

We are told to sign the sheet ahead of time, and get the hell out of Dodge asap after the horn.

But that doesn't negate the idiocy of some players who couldn't possibly wait a few more seconds to be obnoxious.

Not just 1 T, but 2. Cute.

Seems OOO to me...where's Nevada?

Now I have to wipe off my computer screen with the soda I just threw up on it.

Peace

When the game is over, take one last look at the scorekeeper to make sure they aren't frantically waving you back. If they aren't, locate your partners and get the heck off the floor.

What's the intent and purpose of the "pulling out the shirt" rule? I would say that it's to prevent taunting opponents or disrespecting officials. IMO, I don't think it was put in the rulebook so that officials could give a technical to celebrating players after the game when we should be more worried about finding the locker room.

What's the intent and purpose of the referees still having jurisdiction until they have left the confines of the playing court? IMO, it's so that players or coaches can't vent on us after the game with no consequences.

As you described the situation, it sounds like some officials who went looking for trouble and found it. It's one way to get your name known as an official, but the wrong way.

Well, you are free to feel that it is OO if you please, but it is exactly what the NFHS wants called. My personal opinion does not matter, nor does yours or Rut's.
I would just administer it according to the rules. Granted that the situation presented in the OP is a bit over the top (and I personally don't believe that it actually happened), but it is a textbook example of how the FED wants it handled.

Here is the specific play ruling that was issued two seasons ago:
2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: Team A is leading 62-60 when the horn sounds to end the game. A1 then removes his/her jersey near the team bench (a) before the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area; or (b) after the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area. RULING: In (a), A1 is assessed a technical foul. Team B is awarded two free throws; if both are successful, overtime will be played. In (b), since the officials' jurisdiction has ended, no penalty is assessed. (3-4-15; 2-2-4; 10-4-1h)

Mine does.

Just saying......

Well my opinion counts, if I'm on the court.

So would you or would you not give a T in this situation? Cause if memory serves me correctly, you seem to be a pretty strict interpreter of the rule book, especially when it comes to handing out T's when the clock is stopped.

While I agree, it is SOP to do this in some areas.

And, while I wouldn't look for the T, if it was done in any kind of "taunting" manner, I would assess it.

Myself? I'm outa there as soon as the final horn goes. However, if I do see something on my way out that I think is related to unsporting behavior, taunting, etc., then I ain't gonna walk away from it. If I thought the players took their shirts off to taunt the other team or their fans, then I'll call it. If they're just around their own bench celebrating, I'm keeping on a-going.

There's one heckuva big difference between knowing the rules and also knowing <b>when</b> to apply the rules. All good officials know the rules. OOO's however don't know when to apply their extensive rules knowledge. The difference usually is common sense imo.

Yes, I'm a strict interpreter of the rules. I'm not always a strict applier of all of those rules though. Big difference. Apples and oranges. One is concerned with straight knowledge; the other usually is judgment.

Btw, making sure that it's a "T" when it couldn't possibly be a personal foul by rule has got no relation at all to what's being discussed in this thread. That's on a par with deciding whether a foul is shooting or non-shooting. Don't confuse my saying that if you call a foul under certain situations then that foul must be a technical with extrapolating that to mean that you <b>HAVE</b> to call a technical foul under those situations. The idea is that if you do make a call, make sure that you're making the proper call under the rules.

Wow!! Actual officiating wisdom from the Jurassic Curmudgeon himself. This is a very good post and these concepts should be fleshed out and included in the Officials' Manual. Seriously.

Thanks for the kind words but not everybody agrees with those concepts though, Juulie. Everybody has their own opinion.

Interpret the rules strictly, but apply them with judgment. That seems pretty fundamental to me. Add it to my rules to live by. Others can do as they choose.

I will not be around long enough to examine the possibilities. Officials should be out of there and staying around would be silly if you ask me.

Peace

While I agree that this post-game celebration thing is not something you would linger to watch searching for improper behavior, the removal of a jersey is not illegal only when considered taunting. There was a study guide/test question which involved all players coming out wearing warmups, then changing into their jerseys just before the game. Was this a technical foul? Yes. Same for a player with blood on the jersey. The change must take place in the locker room, right?

Who cares? Just like Dan said, it matters only what I think if I am on the court. I do not work for the NF. This is an interpretation, it is not a mandate. Maybe one of these days you will understand the difference.

Peace

Wasn't there an exception for the blood/torn uniform being changed at the bench?

Not from the NF. Your state might have taken a different point of view.

Peace

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

I'm asking before I look, but isn't there some goofy exception or something that would make you play the overtime in this situation? I might be thinking of a correctable error situation. Anyone else remember such a casebook play or test question? Personally I wouldn't have seen the jerseys come off. I agree with many that this is just looking for trouble.

I agree.

Unfortunately, most of my partners on my home board did not. I still remember the end of my most "difficult" game ever - after the horn, I jogged pretty quickly to the locker room, then looked back to see my partner strolling casually towards me. :rolleyes:

If the score was tied (and all action had ended), then administer the T's as part of the OT. Since the score wasn't tied, administer the T's as part of the 4th quarter to see if an OT is needed.

No OT.

You only play OT when the 4th quarter and any activity related to it is completed and the score is tied.

If, instead, it has been a 2 point game, a T had been called on one player, the 2 FT's are made...tieing the game....the game is not going to OT...even if another player earns a T. Had that last player earned the T before the final FT of the first set had been shot, it would have been shot immediately to see if an OT would be played (since it was commited before the 4th quarter ended).

Did you have a typo here? It seems that you meant to write "now".

PS I learned something from looking up your spelling of "tieing". I've always spelled it "tying". I was stunned to learn that both are acceptable. :)

So why don't you just throw out the entire NF rules book and just do as you please? Oh wait, you do. :p

Again what difference does it make to you what the NF says, you are just going to do whatever you wish. :(

For you and anyone else who shares this opinion, would you also "not see" a jersey come off prior to the start of the game? Do you also "not see" pregame dunks? Would these also be examples of "looking for trouble"?

How do you justify ignoring something that is clearly illegal after the final horn, but penalizing the same/similar action prior to the starting whistle?

I don't see how one picks and chooses what rules to enforce and which to ignore.

The best policy has to be to call it according to the rules as written as stated in the POE last year.

Actually you have no idea what I do. You will never work with me. And a rulebook official like you will never understand a concept we call common sense. It is about getting off the court and not trying to find every little possible infraction.

My state wants us to get off the court; they do not want us hanging out. Now maybe you have never done a game with a lot of people, but I have when people rush the court. You do not want to be hanging out to find out what people have for you. And in many of those cases it is also hard to see what players are doing. I am going to assume that if a game is that close that was a realistic possibility. Then again you would not know that now would you?

Peace

My response to your post is:

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

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

People who argue on internet message boards are funny.

Silly monkeys.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...lly_monkey.jpg

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

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. :p

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

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

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

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.

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


(I couldn't recall, so I guessed)

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

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.

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

How do you check that?:confused:



And why would you want to?:D

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

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! :eek:

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

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

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

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? :p

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.

There you go again showing your below average reading skills.:(

The OP wrote
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. :p

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

Nevada,

Do what you want to do. But you have not answered my question (which I do not expect you to answer BTW, I know better). You did not answer about calling other Ts without any consideration to the situation and without consideration to a philosophy. You accused me and a couple of others of picking and choosing rules, but you did not answer a basic question. Of course you will not answer the question because you will have to admit that you do not do that. I give you more credit than that. I have had people that sit on NF Committees (in basketball and other sports) say things in conversation about using common sense on having good philosophies outside of a strict rule. Why do you know more than them? They actually have sat on the NF Committee or have a say in creating rules and we are to listen to you only?

Peace

There you go again attempting to change the point under discussion. This tactic isn't going to work. Let's stay on point here.

Philosophies for giving Ts is a totally different discussion that should take place in a totally different thread. Go start one if you like.

This topic is about applying a very clear rule by the NFHS committee. Again that rule is that removing the shirt/pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area is a technical foul. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The NFHS committee clearly states that this rule applies in all situations and circumstances.

It is you who doesn't like the rule and is trying to evade enforcing it due to your personal philosophy. Why do YOU feel that you know better than the NFHS committee? :eek:

Riddle me that, Batman.

Yeah, what's your point? If they left the HS ranks early enough to enter the pro training system and improved greatly thereafter, it is logical that they would have missed out on working HS State Finals. But you on the other hand are still there working HS games. So what's your excuse?