Flagrant for Words

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I was only commenting to the scenario I laid out where I heard a player tell another player that and penalized based on what I heard. We can scenario play all day long and the penalty changes in each scenario, but if a player says "next trip I'm taking you out" and I tell a coach that he said that (you can be sure that he is going to ask what his player said), then there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room as far as what was said. If I didn't hear it then I am telling the coach "I didn't hear exactly what was said, but the two had words that I judged to be unsportsmanlike", or something similar and agree with you just issuing a regular tech (or double tech).

That is fine with me.

Originally Posted by slow whistle

To your question about precedent, no I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like much of a leap to me if I fail to protect a kid from an explicit threat that I heard and told someone else that I heard, that I could be liable in some way. Seems more prudent in that case to disqualify and tell the coach and player "Sorry, but I can't let it play out to see if you would really act out what you threatened."

The reason I asked is because you are some how taking on a responsibility for the action of someone else. First of all I did not say I would not give a T, but to throw someone out just for that is kind of premature in my opinion. And your scenario is rather silly on so many levels. I have never heard a player ever talk to another player like that during a basketball game let alone a football game where contact is even worse. Now if I hear that I will consider the context and the situation in the game. But I am not going to live being afraid of something I did not say to a player. There are things like assault and other legal issues that are problematic for the player, not the official that just happened to be there. Of course anyone can sue you and will try, but I doubt seriously that is going to happen in your situation as it would have to be heard by many people and if I give a single T I am not writing a report on why I gave the T. You seem to be afraid of something that really is not realistic like the "boogy man" because someone told you it exists. Now that is your right to take action, but I do not go around worrying about liability of what actions a player decides to take. If I allowed someone to play with illegal equipment and they got hurt that is a different story. But a player that runs his mouth to another player, not something I am going to worry about more because someone thinks I am responsible. I will take that to court any day of the week and feel good about the situation.

Peace

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

In reply to the OP, I agree with the part about threats of bodily harm, and racial statements. I would also like to add "offensive gender statements" to the list. A certain amount of teasing with regard to gender or sexual preferences is accepted among friends, but it must be absolutely zero between opponents, imo. Even if the individuals involved are friends off the court, it's risky in a game, in the same way that certain offensive racial statements would be.

Local listing...we have a state HS association rule against anything like this. Makes our jobs simple. We read the policy, which tells them that this is their warning, and what the penalty is, to the teams&coaches (part of our pre-game). Anything of this nature happens, its a T and an ejection and we're backed 100% by the state HS association.
Again...local listing.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Really...one player tells another player "I'll kick your $#%^$% a$$" using a racist/bigoted term in place of '$#%^$% a$$' and you're just gonna write it off as a run-of-the-mill 'T'?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why does that have to be flagrant? I agree it can be a T, but flagrant? This is your personal issue, not something that is automatically supported by rule. Which is why the rules are kind of vague (deliberately I believe) on what is or is not a flagrant and even sometimes a T.

Peace

I didn't make mention of anything being "supported by rule". It was a question to a poster who said he would have difficult time tossing someone for words.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is fine with me.



The reason I asked is because you are some how taking on a responsibility for the action of someone else. First of all I did not say I would not give a T, but to throw someone out just for that is kind of premature in my opinion. And your scenario is rather silly on so many levels. I have never heard a player ever talk to another player like that during a basketball game let alone a football game where contact is even worse. Now if I hear that I will consider the context and the situation in the game. But I am not going to live being afraid of something I did not say to a player. There are things like assault and other legal issues that are problematic for the player, not the official that just happened to be there. Of course anyone can sue you and will try, but I doubt seriously that is going to happen in your situation as it would have to be heard by many people and if I give a single T I am not writing a report on why I gave the T. You seem to be afraid of something that really is not realistic like the "boogy man" because someone told you it exists. Now that is your right to take action, but I do not go around worrying about liability of what actions a player decides to take. If I allowed someone to play with illegal equipment and they got hurt that is a different story. But a player that runs his mouth to another player, not something I am going to worry about more because someone thinks I am responsible. I will take that to court any day of the week and feel good about the situation.

Peace

Um personally I would rather not go to court. And where did I say I lived in fear of any of this? More than one poster said they would automatically DQ a player who made threatening comments and I agreed. This is just one situation where that might apply and a liability issue is just one reason why it might apply. Don't blow my comments out of proportion - is it unlikely? Of course it is!

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I was only commenting to the scenario I laid out where I heard a player tell another player that and penalized based on what I heard. We can scenario play all day long and the penalty changes in each scenario, but if a player says "next trip I'm taking you out" and I tell a coach that he said that (you can be sure that he is going to ask what his player said), then there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room as far as what was said. If I didn't hear it then I am telling the coach "I didn't hear exactly what was said, but the two had words that I judged to be unsportsmanlike", or something similar and agree with you just issuing a regular tech (or double tech).

To your question about precedent, no I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like much of a leap to me if I fail to protect a kid from an explicit threat that I heard and told someone else that I heard, that I could be liable in some way. Seems more prudent in that case to disqualify and tell the coach and player "Sorry, but I can't let it play out to see if you would really act out what you threatened."

Agreed, a player threatens another player, I probably would take him at his word and give him a night off.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Um personally I would rather not go to court. And where did I say I lived in fear of any of this? More than one poster said they would automatically DQ a player who made threatening comments and I agreed. This is just one situation where that might apply and a liability issue is just one reason why it might apply. Don't blow my comments out of proportion - is it unlikely? Of course it is!

If you think you are not going to court because you throw someone out you are sadly mistaken. Because if you throw someone out and you only heard it, what makes you think a parent will not take you to court for your actions? That is a more likely scenario. Or better yet, do not make a controversial call that is perceived to have cost a team a post season game, that has actually been taken to court a few times. So if you fear is to not go to court, you really need to stop officiating considering all the lawsuits that had nothing to do with your scenario.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Or better yet, do not make a controversial call that is perceived to have cost a team a post season game, that has actually been taken to court a few times.

Hadn't heard this one. What's the charge?

[Adam]

The words themselves aren't what's ejectable; it's the context. A player could easily say these words in obvious jest, in a situation where both players have played against and with each other for years.

My point is, "automatic" is tough to say due to the unending variation of possibilities. In order to say a situation is automatic, you have to narrow it down so much that the word "automatic" becomes meaningless.

[mbyron]

IMO, officials who are constantly seeking "automatic" this and "automatic" that are exhibiting a kind of weakness: they don't want to be held responsible for their own judgment, and so are looking for a way to be able to say, "coach, that one's automatic, I might as well not even be here."

Which, in a way, is true of some officials.

Sometimes, you just gotta officiate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

IMO, officials who are constantly seeking "automatic" this and "automatic" that are exhibiting a kind of weakness: they don't want to be held responsible for their own judgment, and so are looking for a way to be able to say, "coach, that one's automatic, I might as well not even be here."

Which, in a way, is true of some officials.

Sometimes, you just gotta officiate.

Kinda like elementary kids getting suspended for bringing a plastic butter knife to school?

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The words themselves aren't what's ejectable; it's the context. A player could easily say these words in obvious jest, in a situation where both players have played against and with each other for years.

My point is, "automatic" is tough to say due to the unending variation of possibilities. In order to say a situation is automatic, you have to narrow it down so much that the word "automatic" becomes meaningless.

Of course the context matters, agreed. If those words were said in obvious jest (tough to imagine, but anything is possible) I would reconsider. I honestly don't see what is all that controversial about DQ'ing a player who threatens another player. My usualy frame of reference is, "would my association stand behind me?" when considering how I would handle a situation. This one I would say is a resounding "YES".

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Threats of bodily harm.

Racial statements.

I concur on this one as well.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you think you are not going to court because you throw someone out you are sadly mistaken. Because if you throw someone out and you only heard it, what makes you think a parent will not take you to court for your actions? That is a more likely scenario. Or better yet, do not make a controversial call that is perceived to have cost a team a post season game, that has actually been taken to court a few times. So if you fear is to not go to court, you really need to stop officiating considering all the lawsuits that had nothing to do with your scenario.

Peace

And to be honest this point is silly. If a parent wants to challenge their kid being DQ'd they are going to appeal to the state. If the state wants to intervene (as IL did once last year), that is there prerogative, if they want ot back the official then great, I'd feel pretty good about that situation as the official. Either way I'd feel a heck of a lot more comfortable than NOT taking action and having something happen. I'll drop this now, I didn't intend to turn this into an episode of Law and Order.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

IMO, officials who are constantly seeking "automatic" this and "automatic" that are exhibiting a kind of weakness: they don't want to be held responsible for their own judgment, and so are looking for a way to be able to say, "coach, that one's automatic, I might as well not even be here."

Which, in a way, is true of some officials.

Sometimes, you just gotta officiate.

I completely agree.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

And to be honest this point is silly. If a parent wants to challenge their kid being DQ'd they are going to appeal to the state. If the state wants to intervene (as IL did once last year), that is there prerogative, if they want ot back the official then great, I'd feel pretty good about that situation as the official. Either way I'd feel a heck of a lot more comfortable than NOT taking action and having something happen. I'll drop this now, I didn't intend to turn this into an episode of Law and Order.

Well you were the person that made an issue out of what would happen in a court room. That never crosses my mind about what players might say to each other. I take responsibility for a lot of things, but when one person says to another is not my concern. If I hear something I penalize it appropriately and move on. If I do not hear this, I am not going to worry about it.

Peace