Time out if......

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As for Brad's opinion, I think that it is very unprofessional of him to chastise others for diligently following the rules and not doing it his way.

I didn't chastise anyone -- I simply said that some people will get caught up in the letter of the law and focus on that instead of common sense. We call these guys "Rulebook Robbies" -- a friend of mine came up with the name and it means officials that are so caught up in the rules they get lost in the actual game.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Having a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book doesn't seem to have any positive benefits

I don't have a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book. The Rulebook Robbies are the officials that focus on minute things such as making sure that shirttails are tucked in, but missing the big plays that matter in a game.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have to believe that Brad is someone who would be classified as one of the guys that Adams says, "call by feel" and are going to have to either change their ways or be phased out.

Not really sure where you are coming up with this or what it means. What was that about chastising?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

I don't have a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book. The Rulebook Robbies are the officials that focus on minute things such as making sure that shirttails are tucked in, but missing the big plays that matter in a game.

I will just add this to this comment. For the record I went to several camps for college conferences the past few years. And a lot of supervisors made a big deal over shirt tails being tucked in. It really depends on who you work with if some of these rules are big deals. For example the uniform rules in my state are a huge issue because everyone was put on notice by the State Tournament issue and it was made a national story. So yes, an official like me that desires to work in the tournament in my state has to follow those rules pretty heavily.

That being said, I do not see how this has anything to do with being a rulebook Robbie as you put it. Common sense has nothing to do with a request that is not common, but makes no sense. If a coach wants me to do his job for him, then that is his problem. But if he wants everyone to follow his request, follow some protocol. Common sense should have told him or any coach that an official is not trying to follow instructions; they are focusing on other things as well. And since the rule does state that if you grant a timeout based on a coach requesting a timeout, not based on conditions that most of us may have never heard before.

And I did ask around with many veteran officials and I have yet to hear anyone say not to grant the timeout and these were not what I would call "rulebook officials." That being said the opinions I have read here are very interesting.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Brad

I didn't chastise anyone -- I simply said that some people will get caught up in the letter of the law and focus on that instead of common sense. We call these guys "Rulebook Robbies" -- a friend of mine came up with the name and it means officials that are so caught up in the rules they get lost in the actual game.



I don't have a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book. The Rulebook Robbies are the officials that focus on minute things such as making sure that shirttails are tucked in, but missing the big plays that matter in a game.



Not really sure where you are coming up with this or what it means. What was that about chastising?

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly. It seems that there is a group of officials who don't possess real strong knowledge of the rules and get by on their people skills. Sadly, they attempt to ridicule those who do by calling them names, instead of just working to correct their own weakness.

I have to ask wouldn't it be better to have both?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

They're not, but there are officials out there who would work by the rule book in exclusion to better ways of doing things. Some even take what's in the rule book and try to apply the most draconian response without even considering how it affects the game.

A moment I remember was a meeting I attended recently where someone asked a question about an illegal t-shirt on a starter only noticed when the kid took off his warmups just prior to the game. One guy wanted to hit the coach with a technical foul since the player wasn't properly attired. Another wanted to send the starter out of the game to remove the t-shirt and require a sub to enter. Me? I'd just delay the game for 20 seconds while the kid slipped out and took the t-shirt off.

This morphed into a discussion about shirts being untucked. Same official said he would send the kid off and ask for a sub. I asked him how that is better than sliding up behind the kid and quietly asking him to put the shirt in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'd just delay the game for 20 seconds while the kid slipped out and took the t-shirt off.

I hate the "Don't Take Off Your Jersey On The Court Rule". The NFHS should have just issued a casebook play regarding a player taking off his jersey in disgust after being disqualified. Charge him with an unsporting technical foul. In my opinion, the NFHS has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Great point. You are wise beyond your years.

Again this is jmo, but knowing the book is the base for everything that we do. If you don't know the rules, howinthehell can you be expected to apply them properly?

A good official knows the rules and has also learned how and when to apply those rules.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Brad

1)I simply said that some people will get caught up in the letter of the law and focus on that instead of common sense. We call these guys "Rulebook Robbies" -- a friend of mine came up with the name and it means officials that are so caught up in the rules they get lost in the actual game.

2) I don't have a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book.

1) And where does it say that "we" and your "friends" get to define what "common sense" is? Just because it is your opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion "common sense". That was the point that I was trying to make.

2) If you don't have a negative attitude with officials who strive to do it by the book, then why are intimating that they lack "common sense" and are "Rulebook Robbies if they do so?

Maybe your TASO chapter allows coaches to use that procedure but there are still a lot of associations out there that instruct their officials to go by the rules when granting TO's. I belong to one of 'em. Imo that doesn't mean that all of those associations now lack common sense and are composed of nothing but "Rulebook Robbies", just because you and your friends say so. We sureasheck do try to get our people to have situational awareness and be ready for the quick TO request. But we also follow the same philosophy that BITS so eloquently stated "I'm not the freakin' maitre d'; I don't take reservations for timeouts."

Jeff called the play using his training and experience. And his training and experience tells him that he made the correct and expected call in the area that he officiates in. That's good enough for me, and I sureasheck can't see where he could possibly lack common sense for calling it that way. And...if you want to handle it differently in your area, that's also good enough for me if your way is the expected call there also. I certainly don't think that you would lack "common sense" just because you made the expected call, and your "expected call" happened to be different than my "expected call".

Again Brad, that's just MY opinion......