City league technicals.

[utahkarakita]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It seems that you officiate for a well-run league which has a strong desire to discourage unsporting behavior...What you call game management, I see as undermining the objective of the policy and the league directors who decided upon it. In my opinion that isn't good common sense.

I understand what you're saying, and that thought has crossed my mind, as well. But, really, that's just as much the reason I think I SHOULD consider some situations differently.

If it's a sportsmanship issue, he's going to get whacked just as fast (if not faster) in my city league game as my HS varsity game.

But, how many technical fouls are not sportsmanship issues?

What if it's a delay of game situation? What if it's a non-troublemaking kid who doesn't even know the rule about playing on the rim, just gets excited and hangs on too long after a dunk?

In a normal HS game, there's no problem... shoot the free throws, put the ball into play and move on.

But you can't tell me the intent of the rule is to rob a kid of 20 minutes of game time for multiple throw-in violations.

That's where common sense has to step in, IMO.

[Rich]

It's the type of rule with good intentions, but is poorly thought out, IMO.

When I lived in Seattle and worked baseball, the state had a rule -- if the head coach got ejected, the team would forfeit. Nobody would eject a coach and the coaches knew it and the behavior was worse than after they got rid of the rule. Sure, there were ejections, but many coaches knew that they *would* get run now that it wasn't the nuclear option it once was.

20 minutes on the bench for a technical foul? I could see officials who would call a T for a spike now walking up and saying "don't do that again." To me, it's better to allow the rules of the game to handle this. Whack, shoot, let's go. He won't do it twice or he'll get ejected.

To me, rec league technicals should be like handing out candy on Halloween. Frequent and routine.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by utahkarakita

But you can't tell me the intent of the rule is to rob a kid of 20 minutes of game time for multiple throw-in violations.

That's where common sense has to step in, IMO.

Agreed -- but that's a job for the rules makers, not for the officials on a particular game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed -- but that's a job for the rules makers, not for the officials on a particular game.

Common sense just stepped in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by utahkarakita

But you can't tell me the intent of the rule is to rob a kid of 20 minutes of game time for multiple throw-in violations.

When you say "multiple throw-in violations," are you talking about Delay of Game violations that occur following a warning? You know, the ones that aren't charged to the player but instead are charged only to the team?

[utahkarakita]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When you say "multiple throw-in violations," are you talking about Delay of Game violations that occur following a warning? You know, the ones that aren't charged to the player but instead are charged only to the team?

I am referring to 9-2-10. The book states that, "repeated" violations of that rule are a "Player Technical" according to 10-3-5.d.

If my interpretation is correct, that means it's a team foul after the first couple of delay infractions, but if it continues "repeatedly" (good luck finding a consensus on what that means) a player technical could be assessed.

At any rate, in any game we officiate there is subjectivity. I don't know why some won't admit that there are times they will/won't whack somebody based on the situation and all the surrounding factors. Of course it's vitally important to know and officiate the rules as they are written, but we're decieving ourselves if we say there is no element of subjective human judgement.

How is my situation any different from passing on a soft "and-one" in the interest of continuing game flow? Or erring on the side of the team that's trailing 30 points on a 50-50 or 60-40 call?

We do it every night gentlemen...

[Adam]

The penalty for the 2nd DOG violation is a team technical foul (10-1-5c, 9-2-10 penalty 2). 10-3-5d gives us leeway to call a player T if B1 keeps doing it. Frankly, if I'm even considering this, he's done it at least twice in a row and will be warned. If he runs through that warning, then I'd be happy to have him sit for 20 minutes. That's very much a sportsmanship issue.

As for letting the soft "and one" (I hate that phrase) go, that's a matter of determining advantage. If the shooter is contacted and it doesn't noticeably affect his shot, it's not a foul. That's a whole different issue.

As for the blowout calls, that's local. There are some high level officials in here who never do it; I know some high level officials that do.

Do game situations come into play when I call a T? Sure, they'll certainly come into play if I sense a situation brewing and think I can difuse it. I don't think that hard about my Ts, though, so the last thing I need to do is wonder whether the penalty is too severe.

If you want them to change, call the T when the next kid slaps the ball in the OOB thrower's hands, making him sit 20 minutes. They'll change it then.

[utahkarakita]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There are some high level officials in here who never do it; I know some high level officials that do.

And here is the crux of the whole issue, IMO.

We can talk all we want about iron-clad consistency, eliminating personal philosophies, etc.

But, at the end of the day, we all make our subjective judgements about items big and small. Every single one of us.

I suppose the goal should be to learn how that judgement process works for the very best officials.

Making those calls in a way that improves the game and manages the situation most effectively is probably what sets them apart from me to begin with

[Adam]

I think the call for consistency is a pipe dream of people like Nevada when it comes to certain issues. The NFHS can cry all they want, but unless local assigners buy in, it won't do any good.

Personally, I wouldn't change the way I call Ts in your game based on the added penalty, but that's me. If you have an issue, you might want to contact that particular league and see if they want you to be more cautious in dishing out Ts.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by utahkarakita

At any rate, in any game we officiate there is subjectivity. I don't know why some won't admit that there are times they will/won't whack somebody based on the situation and all the surrounding factors. Of course it's vitally important to know and officiate the rules as they are written, but we're decieving ourselves if we say there is no element of subjective human judgement.

How is my situation any different from passing on a soft "and-one" in the interest of continuing game flow? Or erring on the side of the team that's trailing 30 points on a 50-50 or 60-40 call?

We do it every night gentlemen...

There's a difference between managing a game and calling (or not) something based on league administration issues.

Give the T if it's earned, and if it's not worthy of a suspension, then let the player / coach appeal it to the league.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by utahkarakita

But, how many technical fouls are not sportsmanship issues?

What if it's a delay of game situation?
...

But you can't tell me the intent of the rule is to rob a kid of 20 minutes of game time for multiple throw-in violations.

That's where common sense has to step in, IMO.

That T is not applied the the player anyway...only a team T. So, I guess the entire team must sit out the next quarter.