Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 657449)

Threats of bodily harm.

Racial statements.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 657449)

Threats of bodily harm.

Racial statements.

Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 657459)

Not to hijack thread, but a slight variation. Had a boys game last week and an F bomb came out not directed at anyone but in frustration over a missed shot. somewhat quiet, yet it caught my attention. break in action and I discreetly told him to watch language. I ignore if uttered under breath but this was getting up there in decibels.

Originally Posted by Ignats75 (Post 657465)

I had a similar situation. Player upset with hmself for missing a bunny. Coach is berating him from the bench and he mutters to himself $h!t. I quietly walked up to him and said "You said shoot right?" He sheepishly grinned and said yeah. He got the point.

Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 657459)

Not to hijack thread, but a slight variation. Had a boys game last week and an F bomb came out not directed at anyone but in frustration over a missed shot. somewhat quiet, yet it caught my attention. break in action and I discreetly told him to watch language. I ignore if uttered under breath but this was getting up there in decibels.

Originally Posted by Ignats75 (Post 657465)

I had a similar situation. Player upset with hmself for missing a bunny. Coach is berating him from the bench and he mutters to himself $h!t. I quietly walked up to him and said "You said shoot right?" He sheepishly grinned and said yeah. He got the point.

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 657478)

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.

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657480)

Just for clarity, are you saying that if a player called another player a "homo" you would go flagrant?

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 657484)

I might. Along with "fag", "gay" if it's used in an offensive manner, and other such words. These are insults in certain contexts, in the same way that the N word might be. I'm not saying it would be automatic, because I'm not sure there's anything that's automatic, but it would certainly put me in that range.

There are other words that I might react in the same way to, although again it would depend on the context. "Good shot, fatty" said sarcastically by an opponent on an airball, might very well be flagrant. It's the tone of disrespect and bullying that would make this unacceptable. Same would apply to "homo" "fag" and others. Are those words ever said respectfully? Not very often. I'd be looking pretty hard to see if there was any redeeming social value in the situation.

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657485)

Interesting..I would never say you are wrong, but to me if I have to think about it that much and analyze the context then I am going to err on the side of a regular ol' T before I disqualify a kid and have him sit for another game (mandatory in IL). There are a few words that have that "automatic" ring to them to me, and off the top of my head the only ones that fit the bill are racial or threatening as in "Next time down I'm taking you out". When kids run around all day calling each other names like "homo", "fag", etc, I have a hard time considering them flagrant. Like I said I would never say you are wrong, everyone brings their own set of personal limits to a game ...

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 657486)

I'm not saying that it would take me very long in the heat of battle, although I know I tend to be a little touchy about this subject since I have a daughter who is a lesbian, and a son who is gay. So I'd call the T right off, and then be contemplating on the way to the table whether or not it's flagrant. Wouldn't take more than a second or two -- tone of voice, look in eye, reaction of the player who "took" the insult.

Furthermore, I don't like it that kids run around all day calling each other "homo" and "fag". I know the theories that it's all in good fun, but I don't buy it. Even before my kids came out, and for my other two who aren't, they know that this kind of "making fun" is NOT ever okay. There's just too much risk of hurting someone else.

Still, I can't control what kids do most of the time. But it's going to be sharply limited when I'm in charge. Just like the F word. Some refs barely notice. For others, it's automatic. For me this subject is right up there near the top of the list.

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 657486)

I'm not saying that it would take me very long in the heat of battle, although I know I tend to be a little touchy about this subject since I have a daughter who is a lesbian, and a son who is gay. So I'd call the T right off, and then be contemplating on the way to the table whether or not it's flagrant. Wouldn't take more than a second or two -- tone of voice, look in eye, reaction of the player who "took" the insult.

Furthermore, I don't like it that kids run around all day calling each other "homo" and "fag". I know the theories that it's all in good fun, but I don't buy it. Even before my kids came out, and for my other two who aren't, they know that this kind of "making fun" is NOT ever okay. There's just too much risk of hurting someone else.

Still, I can't control what kids do most of the time. But it's going to be sharply limited when I'm in charge. Just like the F word. Some refs barely notice. For others, it's automatic. For me this subject is right up there near the top of the list.

Originally Posted by doubleringer (Post 657518)

I would have a difficult time tossing someone for words.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 657498)

Words to me always have to have a context in order for me to give Ts in the first place. Players talking to each other is going to be treated differently than players talking to opponents. That does not mean these things will not be addressed, but you can warn at certain times that can stop a lot of these things from happening in the first place. I think this is such a personal thing and somethings that would be viewed as offensive would be OK to others.

Peace

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 657524)

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 (Post 657534)

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

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657535)

What if a kid says to another kid "next time down I'm taking you out" and you just tech him and the coach leaves him in. Then next time down he DOES take the kid out, do you think you have any liability there? Agreed highly unlikely, just for discussion. Any threat like this is "see ya" for me, if only for this reason.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 657541)

Here is the problem with your logic here. A kid could say nothing like that and draw a T from me. I have heard things said here by others that claim they would draw an automatic T from them (which are fine by me) but you cannot decide that for me. I do not need words to give a T. I will and have used body language during a contentious moment as a guide without hearing a word.

I will give a better example. I am an African-American male that happens to work a lot of games with other African-American males. There is certain language that is historical or language patterns that are used in the African-American community that are not easily understood by many that are not African-American. And no I am not talking about the simple use of a specific word. I am talking about a series of characterizations that I might recognized that would draw my attention that might never draw the attention of anyone else, but would do so to me and others that are the same race and culture. And even then I have ways of handling those things without giving a T if the right circumstances occur. That is why I said if you want to give a T that is your right. Specific words are not under the rules as illegal and since language constantly changes that is why you get paid the big bucks to make those decisions. But to be critical of people that do not want to give a T because you want to give a T is not as easy as you think.

Peace

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657553)

I am not trying to be critical at all, didn't mean to come off that way. I was honestly asking a question, if the scenario I proposed were to happen do you think I as an official would have any liability?

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657553)

I think there is a good chance that I may, so I don't think I would take chances in a situation where someone is that explicit. By all means you have to make that judgement for yourself, every official does.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 657564)

Liability for what? What if you did not hear the comments? I gave a double T about 2 weeks ago and I have no idea what the players said to each other. And I never claimed it was for their words.



Do you have some legal precedent for this? Is there a court case where an official was held responsible for the actions of a player that said something to another player? Because if that is the case what do you do if you do not hear the comments at all. I realize that we think we know everything as officials, but most of the time I have no idea what players actually say to each other and it really gets hard if you are a loud gym and fans are all over the place.

Peace

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657568)

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).

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657568)

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."

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 657478)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 657524)

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 (Post 657534)

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 657576)

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

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657568)

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."

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657645)

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!

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 657671)

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 657714)

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 657673)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 657449)

Threats of bodily harm.

Racial statements.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 657671)

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

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 657714)

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.

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657760)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 657524)

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 Juulie Downs (Post 657484)

I might. Along with "fag", "gay" if it's used in an offensive manner, and other such words.

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 657857)

What if a player called another player "hetero" or "straight"? In an offensive manner, of course?

Originally Posted by Smitty (Post 657858)

Originally Posted by doubleringer (Post 657833)

Yes. Normally after the T, the coach pulls the kid aside and calms them down. Let the coach have an opportunity to coach and deal with the kid. I think the state and my assignors would not look favorably on tossing someone for words or language.

Originally Posted by constable (Post 657866)

Glad I don't work in your state.

That should be a flagrant. The threat is one thing, but the racial remark is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by doubleringer (Post 657833)

Yes. Normally after the T, the coach pulls the kid aside and calms them down. Let the coach have an opportunity to coach and deal with the kid. I think the state and my assignors would not look favorably on tossing someone for words or language.

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657868)

Ha ha this is great. If I threaten to chop your legs out from under you that is one thing, but if I offend your sensitivities you're outta here!

Originally Posted by doubleringer (Post 657833)

Yes. Normally after the T, the coach pulls the kid aside and calms them down. Let the coach have an opportunity to coach and deal with the kid. I think the state and my assignors would not look favorably on tossing someone for words or language.

Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 657868)

Ha ha this is great. If I threaten to chop your legs out from under you that is one thing, but if I offend your sensitivities you're outta here!

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 657857)

What if a player called another player "hetero" or "straight"? In an offensive manner, of course?