Interesting T

[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 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...

[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...