One T or two - if one, on who?

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And if, after you simply "warn" the coach, A1 proceeds to punch B1 in the face, how are you going to respond to the state telling you that you should have taken care of business?

Good point. I am not sure I said I would warn the coach but I haven't re read my posts. I believe I stated I would either toss them right away, or share info on what I thought I heard with my crew so we would have our antenae up. What i know for sure would be that I would have a VERY quick whistle on ANY contact especially involving those players.
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? The end results are still the same. This is where some hypotheticals then go awry. 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?
Too many what if's.....

[Adam]

If you don't even warn the coach, I think you're taking an even bigger risk that A1 follows his orders. Personally, I prefer the type of warning that will resonate over a career; a flagrant T. Player gets to see an object lesson in sportsmanship. Coach gets to think about his words; and gets a very clear lesson for future games on what's intolerable.

And, if it was simply some ill-advised euphemism, then he can explain to the state that he wasn't being literal when he said to punch B1 in the face and they can decide whether and when he can coach again.

[Adam]

I almost forgot: if I, for whatever reason I can't fathom, decided to give the coach a standard T, it would come with a warning. Here's how I imagine that would play out:
Coach: "Punch B1 in the face."
Me: whack!
Coach: "It's a figure of speech, I wasn't being literal."
Me, after I report it to the table: "Good, because if he follows through, not only will he be charged with a flagrant, but you'll get another T and it'll also be flagrant."

[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

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jurassic referee

well said. You're thinking like an official.

ty!