T or not T, that is the question?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think it is different from the backcourt interp, which actually contradicts the rule.

The conflict here is between the letter and the spirit of the rule. I'm ok going with the spirit, provided local customs of calling the game and expectations mandate it.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agree.

Kinda like a blarge.

Double fouls aren't in the rulebook?

[Rich]

This is no different from the kid with the bloody jersey who is told he needs to change and then does so at his bench area. What's the difference?

(And no, I'm unlikely to call a technical in either situation, regardless of if rulz are rulz.)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This is no different from the kid with the bloody jersey who is told he needs to change and then does so at his bench area. What's the difference?

(And no, I'm unlikely to call a technical in either situation, regardless of if rulz are rulz.)

Rich - not picking on you directly, but this is also directed at those who feel the same - how do you get to pick what rules to follow, and what rules to conveniently ignore (I didn't see it...it wasn't my primary...wasn't looking right at it...)? Would you also consider not calling the throw-in violation where there is no pressure? If there is a difference, what is the difference?

Again, I'm not picking on you, or even saying I disagree. I'm still trying to come up with the science involved as to when to follow the rules as written, and when to use that somewhat-dreaded term: common sense.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think it is different from the backcourt interp, which actually contradicts the rule.

The conflict here is between the letter and the spirit of the rule. I'm ok going with the spirit, provided local customs of calling the game and expectations mandate it.

But in the case of the uniform, there really isn't a "spirit" vs. "intent", because the spirit and intent are specifically spelled out in the case play, and others. I believe it's also specifically mentioned that removing the jersey within the visual confines even for changing due to blood, etc. is still a technical foul. There is certainly no intent, disrespect, etc. in this case, but yet the committee wants that to be a T.

It may be an easy answer to say, "that's the way my supervisor wants it called", and realistically, those of us not in power have to follow that. But why do those supervisors and veterans get to decide they want to call something different than a specific rule and/or case mandates? Isn't that the exact reason players and coaches complain about a lack of consistency? One team gets their officials through an assignor that thinks removing the jersey at the end of the game is nothing more than simple celebration (don't take the game away from the kids...), and they travel to a school that uses officials that are told to follow the rules as the NFHS has prescribed - what should they say when they're penalized for the same act they do at home without issue?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But in the case of the uniform, there really isn't a "spirit" vs. "intent", because the spirit and intent are specifically spelled out in the case play, and others. I believe it's also specifically mentioned that removing the jersey within the visual confines even for changing due to blood, etc. is still a technical foul. There is certainly no intent, disrespect, etc. in this case, but yet the committee wants that to be a T.

It may be an easy answer to say, "that's the way my supervisor wants it called", and realistically, those of us not in power have to follow that. But why do those supervisors and veterans get to decide they want to call something different than a specific rule and/or case mandates? Isn't that the exact reason players and coaches complain about a lack of consistency? One team gets their officials through an assignor that thinks removing the jersey at the end of the game is nothing more than simple celebration (don't take the game away from the kids...), and they travel to a school that uses officials that are told to follow the rules as the NFHS has prescribed - what should they say when they're penalized for the same act they do at home without issue?

I remember a few seasons back, a kid got blood on his shorts. I was a bit taken aback when he switched shorts with a teammate at the bench. I was thinking, "I'm glad this isn't the 70s. There were no compression shorts in the 70s." This was before the taking off the shirt rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Agree with the above. But the same question exists - so if a majority of us disagrees with a direct rule and/or interp, should we just not call it?

Would this be the same with the dreaded backcourt interp - should we simply not call it the way the interp states, simply because we don't agree with it?

In either case above, how do we answer the person who asks us why we simply didn't follow the rule? JR, you have said consistenly over the years that "rules rulz", and that we cannot go wrong if we follow them, no matter what we feel or think about certain ones. What makes this one different?

Shut up.

Quit asking embarrassing questions....you know, the ones that I can't really give a good, solid answer to you.

Excellent points, Jim. And I certainly can see where both you and Scrappy are coming from. The only answer that I can honestly give is that imo this type of call falls into the same general area of calls like 3-seconds and 10-seconds to shoot a FT. It's just been generally accepted that judgment is used in a very few areas...contrary to the written rule.... but Rules Rulz in most.

I hate wishy-washy, but there it is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Shut up.

Quit asking embarrassing questions....you know, the ones that I can't really give a good, solid answer to you.

Excellent points, Jim. And I certainly can see where both you and Scrappy are coming from. The only answer that I can honestly give is that imo this type of call falls into the same general area of calls like 3-seconds and 10-seconds to shoot a FT. It's just been generally accepted that judgment is used in a very few areas...contrary to the written rule.... but Rules Rulz in most.

I hate wishy-washy, but there it is.

So, does the fence hurt your Dexter?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, does the fence hurt your Dexter?

How can be I be on the fence when I said I definitely wouldn't call the "T" in the OP?"

I just don't have a good explanation for not doing so.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It is interesting because it does bring up several questions that are related to the thread you're referring to.

By rule, this is a "T". Personally, I wouldn't call it though....and I'd also bet Lark's left nut that we end up with a consensus supporting that stance in this particular situation.

Sooooo....is the end result that we officials are determining whether something should be called no matter what direction the rulesmakers give us? As in the case of when a swung elbow that missed was an automatic "T" by rule, and that rule was almost universally ignored because we thought the punishment didn't fit the crime in all cases? This situation is something like that imo.

Maybe the bottom line is that we think too damn much sometimes and should just follow the rules. Maybe if we all did call 3-seconds strictly by the rule, the teams would adjust and we wouldn't have to talk players out of the paint.

And maybe that's why officiating is as much an art as it is a science.

And maybe I'm thinking too damn much for this early in the morning.


No matter what though, Jeff, I'm still calling a "T" if a player swears loud enough to be heard in the stands(unless he broke a leg or something, of course).

This proves my point. We have people in the other thread that were so eager to follow NF dogma or make an interpretation out of their opinion about what was wrong and in this we have people that want to look the other way when there is an even clearer interpretation. There is no mention of what words are profanity or when they should be used (who hears it and how loud), but there is a rule that says this specific action is completely illegal. But to me it has context and I have enough juice to explain both if not called.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This proves my point. We have people in the other thread that were so eager to follow NF dogma or make an interpretation out of their opinion about what was wrong and in this we have people that want to look the other way when there is an even clearer interpretation. There is no mention of what words are profanity or when they should be used (who hears it and how loud), but there is a rule that says this specific action is completely illegal. But to me it has context and I have enough juice to explain both if not called.

Peace

Not sure to whom you're referring, but I was very clear that my statements on the T were based on local practice in three separate metro areas in which I've worked. I'm not even sure the NFHS was mentioned other than to note that frustration with oneself or teammates is not an excuse for language that would otherwise draw a T.

You're the only one who suggested that your area might not condone such a call when the player's words are not directed towards the officials. Of course, even then, it seemed you would likely call the T but your backtracking, twists, and turns indicated you really didn't want to tell us what you'd do.

It's a funny thing about consistently leaving yourself an out and taking advantage of it when called to the carpet; people stop trusting what you say and start wondering what you meant.

I might be able to think of a few words that, without context, match or exceed the F word in universal derision; but they're all racial or sexual.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not sure to whom you're referring, but I was very clear that my statements on the T were based on local practice in three separate metro areas in which I've worked. I'm not even sure the NFHS was mentioned other than to note that frustration with oneself or teammates is not an excuse for language that would otherwise draw a T.

You're the only one who suggested that your area might not condone such a call when the player's words are not directed towards the officials. Of course, even then, it seemed you would likely call the T but your backtracking, twists, and turns indicated you really didn't want to tell us what you'd do.

I said there are people that I work for that would not want a T for what we discussed with language based on the way the situation was described. I stand by that and since I have worked for some of these people for almost 10 years and heard of situations where Ts were given in leagues and how they were received, I stand by that comment. Context (and you who work for) matters to me even in this situation. And I can tell you if someone gave a T with seconds on the clock for this situation with the jersey, they would have to explain that to the supervisor at some point. And the "It is in the NF book" is not a good answer.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's a funny thing about consistently leaving yourself an out and taking advantage of it when called to the carpet; people stop trusting what you say and start wondering what you meant.

I might be able to think of a few words that, without context, match or exceed the F word in universal derision; but they're all racial or sexual.

Snaq,

The bottom line is I want context to judge if I am going to call these situations properly. If you do not want context then so be it. It is a rules violation to pull out your jersey on the court, but even for you that would not give a T in this situation if I read your comments correctly. It is clear to me that for you this is OK to overlook, but then you set standards that are not necessarily in the rulebook by saying a certain word is an "automatic T" while not being consistent and saying other words elicit the same reaction. I think your problem is I do not agree with you on that situation and then there is a problem with what I am saying. I just find your position and others ironic when you clearly use a "personal standard" for giving a T when it works for you, but then want to be critical of others that do the same in other issues. And no matter how much the NF tries to tell people to apply all their rules, this is not going to ever happen unless they start assigning games and evaluating officials. Until then, all of these issues will stay local on some level.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Snaq,

The bottom line is I want context to judge if I am going to call these situations properly. If you do not want context then so be it. It is a rules violation to pull out your jersey on the court, but even for you that would not give a T in this situation if I read your comments correctly. It is clear to me that for you this is OK to overlook, but then you set standards that are not necessarily in the rulebook by saying a certain word is an "automatic T" while not being consistent and saying other words elicit the same reaction. I think your problem is I do not agree with you on that situation and then there is a problem with what I am saying. I just find your position and others ironic when you clearly use a "personal standard" for giving a T when it works for you, but then want to be critical of others that do the same in other issues. And no matter how much the NF tries to tell people to apply all their rules, this is not going to ever happen unless they start assigning games and evaluating officials. Until then, all of these issues will stay local on some level.

Peace

You're not saying much with which I disagree here. But I'll correct a couple of things.

1. I never said "automatic." Even in situations where I can't imagine not calling a T, I don't use that word because there simply might be something that comes up where a T isn't warranted.

2. I never said my standard was personal, or mine for that matter. It's local, and I'm not sure how many more times I'd need to say it.

3. My problem was I couldn't tell what you were saying. Frankly, I expected you to be the lone voice of dissent on this based on past discussions. You've made it clear that the standards are different in Chicago than in Colorado Springs. I'm ok with that, to be honest.

Do I like the idea of letting kids drop bombs like this without Ts? Not really. But that's my personal standard that I don't get to inject into your games, even if it happens to match the local standard where I work.

[chymechowder]

Can someone help a rookie on this one? Why is this rule even in the book? How long has it been in the book?

Was there a rash of taunting via shirt-doffing?

Or is it an anti-cheating measure? Did teammates at one time swap jerseys to elude a mounting foul count?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

Can someone help a rookie on this one? Why is this rule even in the book? How long has it been in the book?

Was there a rash of taunting via shirt-doffing?

Or is it an anti-cheating measure? Did players at one time swap jerseys to elude a mounting foul count?

My take: Female VB players used to swap out their warm-up shirts for game jerseys. Someone got offended. so, VB put in a rule that it wasn't allowed (on / near the court). But, why have the rule in VB, if we don't have the same rule in basketball?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This proves my point. We have people in the other thread that were so eager to follow NF dogma or make an interpretation out of their opinion about what was wrong and in this we have people that want to look the other way when there is an even clearer interpretation. There is no mention of what words are profanity or when they should be used (who hears it and how loud), but there is a rule that says this specific action is completely illegal. But to me it has context and I have enough juice to explain both if not called.

Disagree. I don't think that proves your point in any way. These are completely different situations, and those situations need to be taken in their individual context, not together. And taking the the situation in the other thread in context, the general consensus was that swearing that is audible to the stands is usually a no-brainer "T" in most areas. In this thread and in this situation, the general consensus is that this is judgment call as to whether a "T" is applicable, and the majority of officials seem to judge that the situation does not warrant a technical foul.

Iow, we're talking apples versus oranges here, and this situation really has got squat to do with the situation in the other thread.

And as for "juice", I'm talking about the consensus of the majority re: how the play is called, not how one individual might call it. You're always gonna get...that guy.

That's my take on it.