Daryl, I'm going to poke a little fun at your response to make a point. No personal affront to you or what I'm sure is your quality job of officiating.

So your stance is that unacceptable language will not be properly penalized the first time, but if uttered again a technical foul is automatic? :confused: :D


This leads me to ask a larger question. Why do people seem to believe that it is proper to fail to issue the proper penalties the first time that infractions of the rules are committed?

I was kidding by the way. Just trying to make a point about anything automatic.

Rule 10-3 7b
 

The rule reference in the title sums it all up. If they curse (profane or inappropiate language), its a technical foul. Regardless if they are cursing because they are mad at something they did or anyone else did....:D

So, "doggone it" deserves a penalty? What if the player is just mad at himself for making a bad play and mutters something like "darn"?

Again - not making fun, just curious as to the ramifications of having one official use a totally different set of criteria than the vast majority of officials.

I think that's why he issues a warning first. Some might call this warning a "come to Jesus meeting," but in context, I think I'll refrain from that. :)

Also, I doubt (in contrast to Nevada's post) he'd let things go that most call the first time around; such as dropping an F-bomb at an official.

Mark, the Preacher is saying that his definition of the word "curse" includes euphemisms. He's not saying he penalizes for all cursing. His last paragraph describes how he decides when to penalize.

Darn would not qualify as profane or inappropiate language.

So that just means that if a kid says "darn" twice, he gets a T. You know what, I don't happen to like the word "like", as in "He like, fouled me". I'm going to start issuing warnings for that type of usage and then technicals for the second time. I'm sure I can come up with a whole bunch of words I like, don't like.

BTW - the epitome of this usage was when I heard a teenage girl standing in line at the store say loudly to her friend, "I can't help it. I like, like him". YEESH!

Why not? As Pastor Long points out above, many consider the euphamisms (of which "darn" is a common one) to be just as bad. Most, like the preacher, recognize they are in the minority, however. And it also seems like the good preacher is cognizant of this in the games and takes the time to warn the transgressors of his heightened standard.

MARK!! Hello....!! He didn't say he was warning or penalizing words he didn't like. He said his definition of cursing and most other people's definition are different, and so he gives people notice that this game, things won't be the same as usual. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yup. Daryl is no different than any other official. Every official applies their own personal standards anyway when it comes to just about all acts comprising unsporting technical fouls, including those for swearing. As long as the official is consistent and manages to keep any nonsense down to manageable levels, who cares?

I care. I care if I have a partner whose "standards" are so far afield from virtually everyone else it makes for an extremely confusing game for me and the players. How would you like it if you had a partner who called all contact as a foul? I can't imagine working with a partner who called every "euphemism" a technical if it is used twice.

I worked with a guy once who defined language worthy of a T as anything "you wouldn't say in front of your grandma". That's a pretty good yardstick, actually. ;)

Wouldn't work for me, though. You never met my grandma. :D

I guess it depends a little on what he's calling a euphemism. If he's really warning for darn and doggone it, well, yea, that could be problematic. But perhaps he means more like (:D ) friggin' or freakin'. I could see warning or whacking about those, especially if other parts of the situation would be borderline such as yelling in someone's face, or yelling at a ref. But then it could be "marshmallow" and it would still be a T.

It's an interesting position for him to take. I'd like to hear more about how it's actually worked out in a real game sitch.

I think the purpose of this rule was to be vague in the first place. What is offensive to one person is not offensive to another. What would be considered out of line in one place would be common in another. I may personally disagree with Darryl's position, but if that works for him I cannot see this as any different when people say "I will give an automatic T if I hear......" And if that was his explanation for giving a T, I know in many places he would be the only person making that call. Being the only official that does just about anything is not a good thing most of the time. This is not a good way to stand out when working games.

Peace

You're right, Jeff. But from what I've heard, Daryl has been making it work for him for a long long time. That's why I'm asking about specifics of his stand and how it works in a real game. I'd like to hear what words he refers to as euphemisms, what coaches say to him, whether players do actually see the boundaries and play within them, etc.