Flagrant Technicals

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I think the bottom line here is that you will know it when you see it.

That is the same example people give for pornography and that ends up with different judgments on what that is. There are many things I have heard people claim they would give a flagrant for that I would never call myself.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are many things I have heard people claim they would give a flagrant for that I would never call myself.

Exactly. That's why I started this discussion, to compare/contrast lines.

[Welpe]

Calling me a cheater will probably get you sent to the bus early. Of course it is all contextual to me. I had a youth football game (different sport but the example still works) where a player on the defense did not like a call one of my fellow officials made and was telling his teammates that that we were cheating them. I dropped a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct on him but did not rule it flagrant.

I had a quick chat with his coach also and explained what the flag was for and that it isn't going to be tolerated. Coach was apologetic and the offensing player was quiet the rest of the game. Message delivered.

Now if a basketball coach is on the sideline screaming at us that we are cheating them...well, that coach just punched his own ticket. I think if a player on a basketball court were to do what the player in my football game did, I would handle it with just a T. But of course, it depends not only what the message they are delivering is, but how they deliver it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fixed it for ya. If you are going to make reference to the famous quip of Justice Potter Stewart, you need to get the topic correct.

I was not quoting anyone or a particular case. And I really was not referring to Jacobellis v. Ohio which is the case Justice Potter Stewart made the comments about obscenity. The issue was about pornographic images and the standards in a particular community in Ohio. And the issue has been litigated a few times since the original case the Supreme Court ruled on from everything from an issue with the group 2 Live Crew in the 90s and even a book called Lady Chatterly's Lover was also an issue for the court. The issue of obscenity might have been talked about, but at the core it was what pornography could and could not be displayed or consumed by the public in certain communities. Now if you did not know that, maybe you should not comment what I have to say. After all I am going to school in this area of social science.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

After all I am going to school in this area of social science.

You're majoring in pornography?

Cool!!

Ummm, what do ya have to do for exams?

[Judtech]

Would it be inappropriate to ask if they are oral exams?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Would it be inappropriate to ask if they are oral exams?

Even as we speak, Lindsay Lohan is rehearsing for her next starring role.

It's true,it's true......

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Would it be inappropriate to ask if they are oral exams?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're majoring in pornography?

Cool!!

Ummm, what do ya have to do for exams?

I know you are being funny, but actually Political Science, which is the study of government structure, laws and many courses and issues dealing with the Supreme Court and the cases they heard and did not hear. Actually I have taken several law courses in and out of my major that dealt with the law and issues like this.

I think some people think this is a rulebook discussion where only one word matters when it comes to the law or the legal issues.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Nevada,

It does not matter. Can we discuss the play and situation this was about, not a completely unrelated issue that no one cares about but you right now?

Peace

[bainsey]

Taking a little thunder from another thread ("BS" at an official, Celtics/Magic), Rocky said he drew the line between a player saying B.S. and F.U.

My question is, if a player is using any language that would require editing on a message board, wouldn't that itself constitute a flagrant T (vulgar AND abusive)?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Taking a little thunder from another thread ("BS" at an official, Celtics/Magic), Rocky said he drew the line between a player saying B.S. and F.U.

My question is, if a player is using any language that would require editing on a message board, wouldn't that itself constitute a flagrant T (vulgar AND abusive)?

No. Context and who the comments are directed towards is a factor for me. If a player says something after hurting their knee is going to be different if they are directing comments to me as an official. Even if it is something we would not allow on this very board to be used.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

My question is, if a player is using any language that would require editing on a message board, wouldn't that itself constitute a flagrant T (vulgar AND abusive)?

There are no absolutes or always in what we do. Live in the grey!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

My question is, if a player is using any language that would require editing on a message board, wouldn't that itself constitute a flagrant T (vulgar AND abusive)?

The answer depends on the level being officiated plus the direction that you are being given at that level.

What gets a player T'd up in a high school game might be overlooked in a D1 game. And the same for D1 vs. NBA. Add in the different tolerance levels of officials and you ain't gonna get a hard'n'fast rule at any level imo.

What you can do is be consistent with your own tolerance level...at the level that you're officiating... and let the players and coachs adjust to you.

JMO...

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bainsey

My question is, if a player is using any language that would require editing on a message board, wouldn't that itself constitute a flagrant T (vulgar AND abusive)?

Rut is absolutely right about the level (and context) having to do with it. In our local rec league, any profanity (regardless of how intended and/or used) by a player or coach is a flagrant technical and demands ejection. We put sportsmanship above everything else (along with player safety, of course). The only exception to that rule is at the HS level, we have the discretion to issue a standard T if we so desire, but not in 3rd thru 8th grade.

A few years ago, I had a kid swear during one of these games. I went to the table and told the book guy to record the flagrant T. He put his arms across his chest and said "No." I stared at him for a moment and told him again. He said he wouldn't because the kid was his son and he knew his son "would never swear". My response? "Coach, we need someone new for the book over here".