Interesting T

[JRutledge]

This is from the IHSA Official's Handbook. Not something I decided to just say or pulled out of thin air.

For the purpose of by-laws 6.011 and 6.012, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” will
include the following: fighting, verbal abuse or dissent directed toward an official or opponent, racial or ethnic slurs, profanity or obscene gestures, flagrant or violent fouls, taunting, trash-talking, or baiting, cheating, throwing or abusing equipment, physical intimidation or abuse of an official or opponent, and unauthorized leaving of the team bench area.

When a player or coach is ejected from a contest, he/she may not play or coach the rest of that contest. In addition, the ejected player or coach may not play or coach in the next interscholastic contest at that level of competition, whether held the same day or a subsequent day, and all other interscholastic contests at any level in the interim. If a coach or athlete is ejected from the last contest of a season, he/she may not coach or play in the first contest of the next interscholastic sport/activity in which the coach or player participates.
During a suspension for unsportsmanlike conduct coaches may not attend contests or travel with the team to and from contests for which they have been suspended.

—27—

A full written description of the incident, utilizing the IHSA Special Report Form, must be mailed by the official to the principal of the ejected player or coach and the IHSA within 48 hours of the incident.
Schools are to set up administrative procedures to insure proper enforcement of the by-law. Failure to enforce the by-law will result in automatic forfeiture of all contests which the player or coach participates in until the required suspension is carried out.

Ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct are considered decisions of contest officials and will not be subject to appeal (by-law 6.033). Schools and the IHSA may assess additional penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct of players and coaches. Official, if you eject a player or coach this ejection is final. There is no changing of the decision during or after the contest. Therefore make sure that the ejection is warranted.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Count me out.

Ok.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Read the sentence (that you quoted) after the red. His qualifier is clear and sufficient here.

If you notice, he likes to try to have his cake and eat it too. In one breath, he will make a declarative statement, then in the next say something to try and create an exception and thus leave himself an escape hatch. This way he can later claim to have been on whichever side of the fence that he chooses. Sorry, but that kind of double-talk doesn't do it for me. Anyone with any intelligence will see right through this shoddy debating technique.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by nevadaref

if you notice, he likes to try to have his cake and eat it too. In one breath, he will make a declarative statement, then in the next say something to try and create an exception and thus leave himself an escape hatch. This way he can later claim to have been on whichever side of the fence that he chooses. Sorry, but that kind of double-talk doesn't do it for me. Anyone with any intelligence will see right through this shoddy debating technique.

+1

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is from the IHSA Official's Handbook. Not something I decided to just say or pulled out of thin air.

For the purpose of by-laws 6.011 and 6.012, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” will
include the following: fighting, verbal abuse or dissent directed toward an official or opponent, racial or ethnic slurs, profanity or obscene gestures, flagrant or violent fouls, taunting, trash-talking, or baiting, cheating, throwing or abusing equipment, physical intimidation or abuse of an official or opponent, and unauthorized leaving of the team bench area.

When a player or coach is ejected from a contest, he/she may not play or coach the rest of that contest. In addition, the ejected player or coach may not play or coach in the next interscholastic contest at that level of competition, whether held the same day or a subsequent day, and all other interscholastic contests at any level in the interim. If a coach or athlete is ejected from the last contest of a season, he/she may not coach or play in the first contest of the next interscholastic sport/activity in which the coach or player participates.
During a suspension for unsportsmanlike conduct coaches may not attend contests or travel with the team to and from contests for which they have been suspended.

—27—

A full written description of the incident, utilizing the IHSA Special Report Form, must be mailed by the official to the principal of the ejected player or coach and the IHSA within 48 hours of the incident.
Schools are to set up administrative procedures to insure proper enforcement of the by-law. Failure to enforce the by-law will result in automatic forfeiture of all contests which the player or coach participates in until the required suspension is carried out.

Ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct are considered decisions of contest officials and will not be subject to appeal (by-law 6.033). Schools and the IHSA may assess additional penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct of players and coaches. Official, if you eject a player or coach this ejection is final. There is no changing of the decision during or after the contest. Therefore make sure that the ejection is warranted.

Peace

So, if a player is suspended only when unsportsmanlike conduct is involved, what are the details? Apparently in this case the first T was unsportsmanlike, but the second was not. So was this a suspension which was overturned or was the player not suspended in the first place, but that was just an assumption.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, if a player is suspended only when unsportsmanlike conduct is involved, what are the details? Apparently in this case the first T was unsportsmanlike, but the second was not. So was this a suspension which was overturned or was the player not suspended in the first place, but that was just an assumption.

I will put it this way. The player did not play the last several minutes of a playoff game (the last game he was in). And the decision was not the coach's decision considering that the player was ejected by the officials that were working the game (right or wrong). Since he was ejected and according to the literature of the IHSA, the decision should have stood. Or they could simply change the by-laws and review all ejections by officials. Which actually would be fine with me, but do not speak often about how you respect what officials do and that if you make such a decision that feeling is going to be supported. If it is subject for review, just say that. I would have been more satisfied if they said they were pulling the official's assignments. That would have at least been in the jurisdiction of the IHSA. And this thing has been done before for other reasons. But this is going to be their problem in the end. Now they will everyone trying to appeal decisions. I am not sure if legally this was a good decision.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will put it this way. The player did not play the last several minutes of a playoff game (the last game he was in). And the decision was not the coach's decision considering that the player was ejected by the officials that were working the game (right or wrong). Since he was ejected and according to the literature of the IHSA, the decision should have stood. Or they could simply change the by-laws and review all ejections by officials. Which actually would be fine with me, but do not speak often about how you respect what officials do and that if you make such a decision that feeling is going to be supported. If it is subject for review, just say that. I would have been more satisfied if they said they were pulling the official's assignments. That would have at least been in the jurisdiction of the IHSA. And this thing has been done before for other reasons. But this is going to be their problem in the end. Now they will everyone trying to appeal decisions. I am not sure if legally this was a good decision.

Peace

Yes, the ejection for the game was obviously a done deal. But the OP indicated that an ejection carried an automatic suspension for the next game. Then the later quote brought up the part about unsportsmanlike conduct. So the question is, with any ejection, is there always a review of the situation, then the suspension for the next game announced, or did the stature of the player in this case lead to special consideration?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yes, the ejection for the game was obviously a done deal. But the OP indicated that an ejection carried an automatic suspension for the next game. Then the later quote brought up the part about unsportsmanlike conduct. So the question is, with any ejection, is there always a review of the situation, then the suspension for the next game announced, or did the stature of the player in this case lead to special consideration?

I cannot answer why this situation was different. Something tells me if this was a bench player that was clearly ejected I am not sure the result would be the same. Better yet, if that is not the case, it sure looks that way. I see a future lawsuit coming when they do not reduce a player from their suspension.

Peace

[budjones05]

Does it really matter to us about whether a T was jusified or not or whether the player should be suspended? To me (and you all may or may not agree with me) is between ISHSA, Schools, and Officials involved.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot answer why this situation was different. Something tells me if this was a bench player that was clearly ejected I am not sure the result would be the same. Better yet, if that is not the case, it sure looks that way. I see a future lawsuit coming when they do not reduce a player from their suspension.

Peace

So JRut am I reading this right - basically they are saying that if the techs came in the opposite order and the unsporting T came second then the suspension would stand? Sounds to me like they are making things up as they go along, definitely not a good precedent to set IMO...

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by budjones05

Does it really matter to us about whether a T was jusified or not or whether the player should be suspended? To me (and you all may or may not agree with me) is between ISHSA, Schools, and Officials involved.

Not really other than in the sense that an official made a judgement and the association appears to be stepping outside the bounds of its own rules to overrule that official...somebody asked earlier if the official possibly contacted the state himself - that was the first thing I thought of as well...if he says hey I screwed up let the kid play maybe that was considered...but the quote from the exec director actually says that the official made the "correct call"...I guess this is just a smoke screen to cover the official b/c if they really mean this then their logic makes no sense...

[Adam]

Didn't they say they thought the official made the right call? A few years ago in Iowa I had a player ejection for two Ts. The first one was for slapping the ball during a throwin, the second for arguing a call. The state did not suspend him, and told me it was because they didn't see the 1st one as a sportsmanship issue.

I had no problem with that. No, he wasn't a star player; it was a JV game.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Didn't they say they thought the official made the right call? A few years ago in Iowa I had a player ejection for two Ts. The first one was for slapping the ball during a throwin, the second for arguing a call. The state did not suspend him, and told me it was because they didn't see the 1st one as a sportsmanship issue.

I had no problem with that. No, he wasn't a star player; it was a JV game.

Yes that is what they said that he made the right call...iff that is truly the issue then I have no problem with it either, but they need to clarify their policy...becuase doing it on the fly makes them look bad IMO...