One T or two - if one, on who?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I make sure that it is for a VERY good reason b/c it is going to go to another level and you better have your ducks in a row.

Sigh... there's too much in the last three posts that has me saying WTH... so I'll narrow it to 3. You've made my point here. Your priorities are way wrong. You want to make sure your ejections are for good reason because it's going to go to another level. Awful. You should want to make sure your ejections are for good reason simply because ejections should only be for a good reason.

Originally Posted by Judtech

What i know for sure would be that I would have a VERY quick whistle on ANY contact especially involving those players.

Worse. Now, because you ignored tossing the coach when it was warranted, you are changing the way you would call the game regarding the players he was talking to and about. You don't see the problem with that? If you would have tossed the coach when you should have, you wouldn't have to penalize the players for the coach's actions.

Originally Posted by Judtech

However, would it be any different if you A) Simply "T'd" the coach and the player still punched or B) Ejected the coach and the player still punched? In A would you toss the player AND the coach even though you already T'd the coach for the infraction? In B, should you have sent the player off along with the coach?

And the worst...

You just illustrated why you should have ejected him. If you T him and the player follows directions, you can't very well eject the coach now. (A) is a referee Effing up his job. In (B) you eject the coach when he said what he said. HOPEFULLY, the rest of the team gets the message and you prevent the punch, but if you don't, absolutely you toss the kid, and no, of course you wouldn't toss the kid before he does anything.

I'm flabbergasted that you would allow a coach to give "loud" instructions to a player to do something that you would CERTAINLY eject for (without thinking or worrying about having to defend yourself to the state), and not eject him for giving those instructions.

(And as to the criminality, you're wrong. The coach's statements would speak for themselves - HE would have to prove that it was impossible for the child to interpret his instructions to mean that he should punch the other kid. And HE would be in jail (at least one example of this from baseball, nearly identical, except involving throwing a ball at a player and not a punch)).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Jud, first off ... if "Punch him in the face? (regardless of what happens beforehand) is not across your line, I strongly suggest that you redraw it. It's been stated above (and accurately) that just telling a kid to punch another kid is a crime in some places.

Second - it was really the rest of your post that was complete nonsense. You can't justify not giving a tech because the coach might disagree with you, and it would end being he-said-she-said. That's so far down the bottomless pit of absurdity, I can't even fathom thinking this way. ALL of your justifications for not Teeing this guy up and/or tossing him were nearly as absurd.

Amen, Mike.

We have the responsibility to make sure that the game is played in a safe enviroment that's completely free of threats, intimidation or any other crap like this. And if an official don't have the balls to take care of bidness, then he should be coaching, not officiating. We NEVER make any call out there while worrying if a coach might disagree with it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sigh... there's too much in the last three posts that has me saying WTH... so I'll narrow it to 3. You've made my point here. Your priorities are way wrong. You want to make sure your ejections are for good reason because it's going to go to another level. Awful. You should want to make sure your ejections are for good reason simply because ejections should only be for a good reason.

Worse. Now, because you ignored tossing the coach when it was warranted, you are changing the way you would call the game regarding the players he was talking to and about. You don't see the problem with that? If you would have tossed the coach when you should have, you wouldn't have to penalize the players for the coach's actions.

And the worst...

You just illustrated why you should have ejected him. If you T him and the player follows directions, you can't very well eject the coach now. (A) is a referee Effing up his job. In (B) you eject the coach when he said what he said. HOPEFULLY, the rest of the team gets the message and you prevent the punch, but if you don't, absolutely you toss the kid, and no, of course you wouldn't toss the kid before he does anything.

I'm flabbergasted that you would allow a coach to give "loud" instructions to a player to do something that you would CERTAINLY eject for (without thinking or worrying about having to defend yourself to the state), and not eject him for giving those instructions.

(And as to the criminality, you're wrong. The coach's statements would speak for themselves - HE would have to prove that it was impossible for the child to interpret his instructions to mean that he should punch the other kid. And HE would be in jail (at least one example of this from baseball, nearly identical, except involving throwing a ball at a player and not a punch)).

Well said. You're thinking like an official.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Amen, Mike.

We have the responsibility to make sure that the game is played in a safe enviroment that's completely free of threats, intimidation or any other crap like this. And if an official don't have the balls to take care of bidness, then he should be coaching, not officiating. We NEVER make any call out there while worrying if a coach might disagree with it.

Good thing, or I'd think I didn't do a very good job last night.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jurassic referee

well said. You're thinking like an official.

ty!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good thing, or I'd think I didn't do a very good job last night.

Somehow, I think that you didn't spend very much time worrying about what the coach mighta thought of you or your calls.

The guy in the mirror is the guy that you have to keep happy. And some people have to learn that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Somehow, I think that you didn't spend very much time worrying about what the coach mighta thought of you or your calls.

The guy in the mirror is the guy that you have to keep happy. And some people have to learn that.

Yup. I've worked more summer ball this year than I have in the past, and I'm amazed at how few of these coaches know how to ask a question. Lots of statements starting with "that's a," but very few questions.

[Judtech]

I am just presenting how the scenario would play out. Some have said they would only give a "T", some said "Flagrant T" . SNAQ asked what would happen if nothing were done to the coach and the kid went out and punched the player. The response I gave was what would happen if you DID do something about the coach and the kid STILL punched him.
As for "loudly" I hate to split hairs but what is "loudly"? Is it a small gym with 8 people in it and everyone heard? Is it a big gym with 1000's of people in it and only I heard it? Did I catch the whole conversation? Is the coach not only yelling but being demonstrative? These are the things I take into consideration. None of which involves what the coach will think. I am cognisant of what the officiating board and state board think and I know that any ejection will get a thorough reveiw. Most likely the coach will complain about the ejection to "the powers that be". IMO, it is my job to have made sure that they don't have a leg to stand on. Obviously, I think this is a reasobable approach, and just as obviously some don't.
Of course, I am having flashbacks to The Great Santini, which would be a whole DIFFERENT story!
And legally, if your standard is followed, all the coach would have to do is show he has used that phrase before and no one was punched. The old saying is Its not what you know, its what you can prove.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yup. I've worked more summer ball this year than I have in the past, and I'm amazed at how few of these coaches know how to ask a question. Lots of statements starting with "that's a," but very few questions.

But they do seem to have the "statement question" down:
"How can you call that in summer league"?
"We don't get that call during the season?"
"WHy can't you just let them play''?
"Why can't my player get that call?"
"Well how come that was a foul last week"?
"You know they don't call it this way over in ______"?
and everyones favorite:
"Why does Kobe get to wear a wrist braclet?"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Judtech

And legally, if your standard is followed, all the coach would have to do is show he has used that phrase before and no one was punched. The old saying is Its not what you know, its what you can prove.

I'm not going to try on the rest. You're obviously a lot smarter than me.

But you're flat wrong on this last. Real case - Dallas area coach told his pitcher, (he claims in jest), "If he does that crap again, nail him." Said player did "that crap" again - pitcher nailed him. Batter was in the hospital a while. Coach was sued by both the batter AND the pitcher, and brought up on criminal charges of Endangering a Child, Inciting a Minor to Commit a Crime, AND Battery. Guilty on all 3, lost both civil cases, and I recently heard he was denied parole a few weeks ago. This happened while I lived there, so at least 3 years ago.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

But they do seem to have the "statement question" down:
"How can you call that in summer league"?
"We don't get that call during the season?"
"WHy can't you just let them play''?
"Why can't my player get that call?"
"Well how come that was a foul last week"?
"You know they don't call it this way over in ______"?
and everyones favorite:
"Why does Kobe get to wear a wrist braclet?"

That would be a step up from what I'm getting. And, FTR, I treat those "questions" just as I treat statements.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm not going to try on the rest. You're obviously a lot smarter than me.

But you're flat wrong on this last. Real case - Dallas area coach told his pitcher, (he claims in jest), "If he does that crap again, nail him." Said player did "that crap" again - pitcher nailed him. Batter was in the hospital a while. Coach was sued by both the batter AND the pitcher, and brought up on criminal charges of Endangering a Child, Inciting a Minor to Commit a Crime, AND Battery. Guilty on all 3, lost both civil cases, and I recently heard he was denied parole a few weeks ago. This happened while I lived there, so at least 3 years ago.

I think we agree on this actually. The difference is that the pitcher actually DID hit the batter. Same in this case if the player punched the other player. You also see lawsuits that involve coaches saying things like "We are going to run till we drop" and sure enough a player drops. That is why you are seeing an emphasis in coaching to steer away from things like "Suicides" "Killers" etc because of liability.
The point I was making was if the coach SAID it but the player didn't act on it you would have a tough case to prove criminality.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I am just presenting how the scenario would play out. Some have said they would only give a "T", some said "Flagrant T" . SNAQ asked what would happen if nothing were done to the coach and the kid went out and punched the player. The response I gave was what would happen if you DID do something about the coach and the kid STILL punched him.
As for "loudly" I hate to split hairs but what is "loudly"? Is it a small gym with 8 people in it and everyone heard? Is it a big gym with 1000's of people in it and only I heard it? Did I catch the whole conversation? Is the coach not only yelling but being demonstrative? These are the things I take into consideration. None of which involves what the coach will think. I am cognisant of what the officiating board and state board think and I know that any ejection will get a thorough reveiw. Most likely the coach will complain about the ejection to "the powers that be". IMO, it is my job to have made sure that they don't have a leg to stand on. Obviously, I think this is a reasobable approach, and just as obviously some don't.

I think it's officiating in fear. Personally, I don't care if the state "upholds" my flagrant in this sort of situation. I will have done my job and slept well at night. If the state buys the coach's story, so be it. They will have my report. And if the coach has that much power and stature, it won't matter what the tape says anyway.

I don't reserve technical fouls for actions or words that are picked up on video tape. Would you call the flagrant if you knew there was no video tape of the game at all?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I think we agree on this actually. The difference is that the pitcher actually DID hit the batter. Same in this case if the player punched the other player. You also see lawsuits that involve coaches saying things like "We are going to run till we drop" and sure enough a player drops. That is why you are seeing an emphasis in coaching to steer away from things like "Suicides" "Killers" etc because of liability.
The point I was making was if the coach SAID it but the player didn't act on it you would have a tough case to prove criminality.

I'm pretty sure the legal definition of assault can include verbal threats of violence. I could be wrong, however.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That would be a step up from what I'm getting. And, FTR, I treat those "questions" just as I treat statements.

Oh I hear worse, but I thought this was a family friendly forum! My favorite being, incidentally enough, an ejection.
3 seconds left. Team A is ahead, fouls Team B after Team A misses a FT. Coach comes out onto the floor, all 5'3" of him, and wants to know how I can make that call b/c "This is AAU". So after I report the T, he is huddling with his players pushes two of them aside, stares at me and says, "We are going to win this game despite what this F'ing cracker and Uncle Tom call". My partner was near me and said "You want me to get that or do you want it" I let him take it b/c after all, I am just a giver at heart!