City league technicals.

[utahkarakita]

Every year I tell myself I'm done doing youth city league games. Every year I end up doing them again. The truth is, I can't resist any chance pick up the whistle - and my wife likes the money.

At any rate, the other day I whacked a kid for slamming the ball down on the floor and watching it bounce 20 feet in the air. As per the usual city league rules, the young man could not sub back in until 20 minutes of game time had passed.

I was told later that the kid was mad at his own teammate for running into him and causing a turnover. That did not change my mind about the call, but it did get me thinking...

In a high school game, a technical is two free throws, possession, and a personal/team foul. In a city league game, it's all that plus a 20-minute "ejection."

Does the fact that the penalty is much more harsh (especially if it's one of their best players) mean it should be viewed differently and called differently?

My own conclusion is: Yes. In the interest of game management, there are some conceivable situations where something that would get a good whacking in a HS game, might not get the same in a city game.

I have a pretty good idea what some of the counter-arguments to this will be. But, I've always been one that tends feels common sense has to take precedence over the rulebook sometimes.

I will now return to my world of insanity, where I debate the intricacies of youth city league game management for fun.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by utahkarakita

Does the fact that the penalty is much more harsh (especially if it's one of their best players) mean it should be viewed differently and called differently?

I say absolutely not, unless your special rules also lay out a different definition of what a technical foul is.

[Kelvin green]

T is a T... Its unsportsmanlike and the league wants them to cool down and think about their behavior. Hockey has the penalty box and its not any different. They broke the rules they face the penalty.

[tjones1]

Interesting... so in your league you have a 20-minute penalty for getting a technical foul charged to you.... kinda like a penalty box/power play thing. Cool.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by utahkarakita

Every year I tell myself I'm done doing youth city league games. Every year I end up doing them again. The truth is, I can't resist any chance pick up the whistle - and my wife likes the money.

At any rate, the other day I whacked a kid for slamming the ball down on the floor and watching it bounce 20 feet in the air. As per the usual city league rules, the young man could not sub back in until 20 minutes of game time had passed.

I was told later that the kid was mad at his own teammate for running into him and causing a turnover. That did not change my mind about the call, but it did get me thinking...

In a high school game, a technical is two free throws, possession, and a personal/team foul. In a city league game, it's all that plus a 20-minute "ejection."

Does the fact that the penalty is much more harsh (especially if it's one of their best players) mean it should be viewed differently and called differently?

My own conclusion is: Yes. In the interest of game management, there are some conceivable situations where something that would get a good whacking in a HS game, might not get the same in a city game.

I have a pretty good idea what some of the counter-arguments to this will be. But, I've always been one that tends feels common sense has to take precedence over the rulebook sometimes.

I will now return to my world of insanity, where I debate the intricacies of youth city league game management for fun.

1. To be precise you should use "individual" or "player" instead of "personal" in this sense as a technical foul is NEVER also a personal foul, even though it often is charged to a specific individual. Personal fouls and technical fouls are the two basic and mutually exclusive types of fouls.

2. Rec leagues are notorious for bad behavior, which drives away the better officials as they get sick of dealing with it. It seems that you officiate for a well-run league which has a strong desire to discourage unsporting behavior. That is the conclusion I draw from reading that earning a technical foul in it also mandates the loss of twenty minutes of participation. Nothing gets through to a kid like the loss of playing time!
So if you raise your threshold for assessing a technical foul in order to help the kids avoid the tougher penalty, then you are counteracting the message that the league is trying to send. 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.
Therefore, I recommend that you not lessen your standards for a technical foul solely due to the stiffer penalty and that you strongly support the administration of this league in their quest to stamp out such behavior by dealing with it harshly. Please contemplate this for a bit.

Best Wishes.

[just another ref]

Years ago, a local church league had a similar rule that any player who picked up a technical foul had to sit out the next period. They also had a rule which said a shot from the backcourt was a technical foul. At the end of a men's game with a tie score, the point guard, arguably the team's best player, took a shot for the win from the backcourt. He missed. Now the other team had two opportunities to win the game at the free throw line. They missed both. Now the point guard was forced to sit out the overtime.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Years ago, a local church league had a similar rule that any player who picked up a technical foul had to sit out the next period. They also had a rule which said a shot from the backcourt was a technical foul. At the end of a men's game with a tie score, the point guard, arguably the team's best player, took a shot for the win from the backcourt. He missed. Now the other team had two opportunities to win the game at the free throw line. They missed both. Now the point guard was forced to sit out the overtime.

What good reason is there for making a rule penalizing a team/player for shooting in the backcourt? And better yet, why make it a technical?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

What good reason is there for making a rule penalizing a team/player for shooting in the backcourt? And better yet, why make it a technical?

The theory was, I believe, that long heaves like this were hard on the goals.
I believe that they had wooden backboards.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It seems that you officiate for a well-run league which has a strong desire to discourage unsporting behavior. That is the conclusion I draw from reading that earning a technical foul in it also mandates the loss of twenty minutes of participation. Nothing gets through to a kid like the loss of playing time!

So if you raise your threshold for assessing a technical foul in order to help the kids avoid the tougher penalty, then you are counteracting the message that the league is trying to send. What you call game management, I see as undermining the objective of the policy and the league directors who decided upon it.

+1

This seems exactly right to me. The rationale for the additional penalty is to send a firmer message about unsporting behavior. Help the league out by identifying that behavior.

We've addressed the "frustration bounce" in other threads. Some think it's always unsporting, whether the player is responding to an official's call or a teammate's poor play. Others would advise you to warn, then whack when unsure what the player's responding to.

Either way, it's worth addressing this behavior sooner rather than later, as it doesn't improve with age.

[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?

[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.