T'able offense?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In a Adult Men's Rec League where he's already headed out the door? It would have served no purpose. The tech and the disqualification sent the message loud and clear, IMO.

The purpose would be to let this guy know that even though he is through for the day, he still needs to know how to act as long as he is in the building.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The purpose would be to let this guy know that even though he is through for the day, he still needs to know how to act as long as he is in the building.

Yep. I'm sure this added bit of teaching will bear much fruit. Unless he's a typical wreck league numbskull. Oh, you're right, that IS redundant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Yep. I'm sure this added bit of teaching will bear much fruit. Unless he's a typical wreck league numbskull. Oh, you're right, that IS redundant.

The fruit could be nothing more than a suspension or fine from the recleague masters. 2 Ts often means suspension in these leagues.

It could be nothing more than your satisfaction that you made the right call.

Worst case, the league officials don't assign you any more of this particular knucklehead's games.

Regardless, no sleep lost.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The fruit could be nothing more than a suspension or fine from the recleague masters. 2 Ts often means suspension in these leagues.

It could be nothing more than your satisfaction that you made the right call.

Worst case, the league officials don't assign you any more of this particular knucklehead's games.

Regardless, no sleep lost.

Somebody at camp this summer put into words something I think we all know inherently. One important, but often unappreciated, aspect of using a T to control a game is then allowing the situation to dissipate.

The guy isn't escalating. He just wants to get in one last jab before he goes. Why not let him have the last word? About 13 more steps, and the click of the closing gym door, and it's over. Why not just let it be over and get on with the game?

Will it make the game better to toss one more T his way? You know, as a parting gift? Seems to me it would just be piling on, and reinforcing the illusion that the OP really is out to get him. After all, why only give the guy 5 fouls when you can give him 6?

As for his rec league masters...was there something in his words or behavior that actually warrants "further action"? Were they so out of line that he deserves a fine or suspension?

Regardless, no sleep lost.

[Adam]

So, since this guy is grabbing his bag and heading for the door, he gets a free pass? If he'd waited a moment, sat on his bench, and said the same thing as you walked past him, would you T him up? I would have.

Maybe the T here shows the other players that they don't get a free shot just because they've already been DQ'd. Allowing a free shot isn't allowing the situation to dissipate, it's setting up future escalation.

No, neither T would normally justify further action, IMO, but combined, they're easily an ABS situation. Do we hold back on 2nd Ts just because nothing said for the 2nd one really, by itself, earns a report to the state or conference?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, neither T would normally justify further action, IMO, but combined, they're easily an ABS situation. Do we hold back on 2nd Ts just because nothing said for the 2nd one really, by itself, earns a report to the state or conference?

In my corner of the world throwing a 2nd T in this situation in a Men's Rec League would not serve any purpose. ""Well, you got what you wanted" is very mild. Especially considering that this person is voluntarily leaving the building for his 5th foul (4 personals and a 'T') when there was no requirement to.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In my corner of the world throwing a 2nd T in this situation in a Men's Rec League would not serve any purpose. ""Well, you got what you wanted" is very mild. Especially considering that this person is voluntarily leaving the building for his 5th foul (4 personals and a 'T') when there was no requirement to.

Wouldn't there be additional FTs attempted for the 2nd T? This is generally when his teammates turn on him & tell him to "shut up" because he is costing them.
Also, in these parts 3 Ts on one team = ballgame.

[Back In The Saddle]

Snaqs, it's pretty rare when I totally disagree with of your posts. But I do in this case.

"So, since this guy is grabbing his bag and heading for the door, he gets a free pass?" I'll come back to this one.

"If he'd waited a moment, sat on his bench, and said the same thing as you walked past him, would you T him up? I would have." But he didn't. A different situation may require a different way of addressing it. But this wasn't a different situation.

"Maybe the T here shows the other players that they don't get a free shot just because they've already been DQ'd."

Okay, to the meat of my disagreement. If you have to start this sentence with the word "maybe" it tells me you're searching for a justification to fit your point of view. If the justification for ejecting somebody isn't obvious, should you really be ejecting? I don't think so. I don't really think you do either.

The word "shows" disturbs me too. To me, in this context, this has just one meaning, as in "I'm gonna show 'em!", a phrase that inevitably flows from a sense of having received a personal insult or injury. Where was the insult or injury here? That the player didn't agree with the foul calls? The official is the authority figure, he has the whistle and the T. If giving the guy a T for his fifth foul isn't "show" enough, how much "showing" is enough? And what exactly are you trying to "show"? To whom? And why?

And then there's the use of the phrases "free pass" and "free shot". Are you sure you're not taking this just a tad personally?

"Allowing a free shot isn't allowing the situation to dissipate, it's setting up future escalation."

I just flat out disagree with this. Allowing a coach, player, wife, teenage daughter, etc. to have the last word in an argument that you've "won" is usually very de-escalating. You made your point; they made theirs. It's not exactly rational, this need on their part to score some final point in a losing battle, but it makes them feel better about losing. As long as compliance follows, and the "last word" isn't threatening, obscene, escalating, etc., let them have the last word and move on.

And if, in this case, it leads to future escalation (I assume you mean by that player in a future game), then at that point you've got your clear justification for ejecting him.

"No, neither T would normally justify further action, IMO, but combined, they're easily an ABS situation. Do we hold back on 2nd Ts just because nothing said for the 2nd one really, by itself, earns a report to the state or conference?"

IMO it is a different situation where there's a "state" or "conference" involved, as opposed to a wreck league. But even in the HS game, where the state has a vested interest in backing the official, the notion of a justifiable ejection is important to an official's career. Would "further review" of the ejection you propose, considering the known history between these two, show the ejection to be clearly justifiable? Or will it merely look like somebody trying to "show" somebody?

[Adam]

BITS, I think we're in more agreement than not. I'm really fleshing this thing out more than trying to argue a point or justify a point of view. I'm still not sure, and perhaps it's because I'm seeing (and hearing) this differently in my head than you are.

If it's a quiet comment on his way by, I agree with letting him walk on this. Then it's a last word issue. However, I was picturing a final "shot" quite a bit louder and angry, sort of a "well, I'm already done, may as well tell him how I feel." Upon further review, I think it was most likely the quieter scenario.

Originally Posted by BITS

The word "shows" disturbs me too. To me, in this context, this has just one meaning, as in "I'm gonna show 'em!", a phrase that inevitably follows receiving some kind of personal insult or injury.

That's not at all what I meant, and it's not the only meaning allowed by the context. In rec ball, letting players walk all over you shows other players they can do the same. Taking care of business shows them it won't be tolerated. It has nothing to do with some sort of sick power trip or vendetta.

And by "free shot" I simply meant to portray this as how I envisioned it; like a MLB manager who's just been ejected for balls-and-strikes deciding he may as well get his money's worth. Depending on the volume and tone, I'm not sure where the OP fits.

Was it a conciliatory tone or a combative scream? Most likely, it was somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by BITS

And if, in this case, it leads to future escalation (I assume you mean by that player in a future game), then at that point you've got your clear justification for ejecting him.

No, I mean by the other players in the same game. Each game is new, IMO, so I'm not concerned with that for this game. I picture other players seeing him get away with a few choice parting words and thinking they can do the same.

I started to compare it to a hs game, but realize that's not fair. It's wreck ball, my point was we don't have a different standard for a first T than for the 2nd just because the 2nd removes him from the game. If the player does something that earns him a T, then turns around later and does the same exact thing, you ding him both times even though nothing he did by itself warrants an ejection. NFHS (for one) has determined that in this case, ABS warrants ejection.