T or not T, that is the question?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

Scenario:

Visitors up by 2; they're dribbling the ball in the FC with 1 min. left in the game.

A member of the home crowd shoots a roman candle onto the court. The pyrotechnic strikes and ignites the jersey of a visiting player, who loudly exclaims "Some crazy [maggot farmer] just lit me on fire!" as he takes off his burning jersey and throws it to the floor.

A. No technicals
B. One technical for swearing
C. One technical for removing jersey
D. Two technicals

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

Scenario:

Visitors up by 2; they're dribbling the ball in the FC with 1 min. left in the game.

A member of the home crowd shoots a roman candle onto the court. The pyrotechnic strikes and ignites the jersey of a visiting player, who loudly exclaims "Some crazy [maggot farmer] just lit me on fire!" as he takes off his burning jersey and throws it to the floor.

A. No technicals
B. One technical for swearing
C. One technical for removing jersey
D. Two technicals

Fine, I'll play along.

If the floor is good enough to finish the game after the smoke clears -- and the crowd is evacuated after the arrest of said maggot farmer -- a technical foul goes to the home team, citing 2-8-1. (If that isn't using discretion, as the note insists, I don't know what is.)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

Scenario:

Visitors up by 2; they're dribbling the ball in the FC with 1 min. left in the game.

A member of the home crowd shoots a roman candle onto the court. The pyrotechnic strikes and ignites the jersey of a visiting player, who loudly exclaims "Some crazy [maggot farmer] just lit me on fire!" as he takes off his burning jersey and throws it to the floor.

A. No technicals
B. One technical for swearing
C. One technical for removing jersey
D. Two technicals

E. Fire code violation; game postponed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I am not putting them together. Actually I think they are rather different, but one has a clear interpretation and the other does not have a clear interpretation. What is similar is that you and others took a stance on one thing and suggested there was no such wiggle room, but in this situation there is wiggle room.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 this thread and in this situation, the general consensus is that this is judgment call whether a "T" is applicable, and the majority of officials seem to judge that the situation does not warrant a technical foul.

Forgive me for a moment, I cannot go to anyone I work for and say the "general consensus on a discussion board say......" and not get laughed at hysterically for making such a comment.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

They are not directly related, but one has a clear interpretation that it is illegal, the other is implied by interpretation, but does not make it clear what words violate the profanity rules. Which is why I asked why is "Damn" not considered an "automatic" T as well. It is profanity. But this situation with the jersey was covered by rule very specifically, but some (including me) would not call this in that situation.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Again, I cannot go to the people in my area and talk about consensus here. But there are officials that have a certain background or proven history that if they did a "talk to" in both situations, they would get away with it fine. In some circles I would be fine, in others I might get in trouble (even when it applies to two different State Final officials in the very same game). Which is why I asked about the context the player did or said what they did.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Fine, I'll play along.

If the floor is good enough to finish the game after the smoke clears -- and the crowd is evacuated after the arrest of said maggot farmer -- a technical foul goes to the home team, citing 2-8-1. (If that isn't using discretion, as the note insists, I don't know what is.)

A certain ref in Nevada would be very proud.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

A certain ref in Nevada would be very proud.

Be nice!!!!

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yes, I would whack that if I saw it. The difference to me? This one is definitely unsporting behavior.

+1

You'd undoubtedly get a rash of "but the game is OVER!" objections, and perhaps never see an angrier throng of individuals, but if they knew everyone is responsible for their behavior until the true game's end, that lesson wouldn't have to be learned the hard way.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

A certain ref in Nevada would be very proud.

True.

But, good lord! If you can't use 2-8-1 after a fan uses projectile flames, when can you use it!?

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

True.

But, good lord! If you can't use 2-8-1 after a fan uses projectile flames, when can you use it!?

I don't know about you, but I'd be leery of T'ing a crowd that includes those that have projectile fireworks...unlike that player, I paid good money for my shirt!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not putting them together. Actually I think they are rather different, but one has a clear interpretation and the other does not have a clear interpretation. What is similar is that you and others took a stance on one thing and suggested there was no such wiggle room, but in this situation there is wiggle room.

And that's exactly why one situation does not prove the other, as you tried to imply.

There's one heckuva big difference between me...or anyone... taking an individual stance on how a rule should be called versus the stance taken by the majority of officials in an area. And as I said, the general consensus so far seems to be that profanity audible in the stands should be "T"d up. You seem to be the voice in the wilderness opposing that. The situation detailed in this thread is different, and it seems the majority of respondants recognize that as such and think that it should be handled differently.

As I said, apples and oranges.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you noticed, this was my biggest disagreement in that thread. I do not think that was an "automatic" and the context in which a player used certain language would matter to me. I also never said that it would just be overlooked. I probably would tell the kid to watch his language and then I would not have to worry about this the rest of the game.

I agree context matters. I also disagreed with your implication that the context of the OP was insufficient. I felt it was sufficient, in that about the only way I'm letting an F-bomb go when it's loud enough for the opposing bench to hear is with an injury of some sort.

Frankly, I expected you to simply say you'd talk to him; the context was already there. That was my only initial point; there was plenty of context to say what you'd do.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Really? You could not tell that I needed a kid to do more than just say something that the bench could hear? You could not tell that it was not an "automatic" T if the kid said that only where the bench was hearing this? Not that the fans in the gym heard the kid or that maybe the kids other behaviors might matter to me. You did not understand that at all? And for the record, I do not live in Chicago. I live in Wheaton, but I work in multiple parts of the state like the Quad Cities, Peoria, Rock Falls, Joliet and Quincy. Before you look on a map, these places are in some cases over 270 miles from each other. And all those places do not have the same assignors or standards with their officials. Oh, I doubt there is another person that could say they worked in those areas this year.

1. see above.
2. I was going for the semi-alliteration. Maybe I could have gone with Wheaton and Wheat Ridge. Or Des Moines and Denver. Or....

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What is dropping bombs? They either used certain words or they used other words.

Good grief, it's a euphamism for saying "Fu@k." I wasn't aware there was any confusion there.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I also have no problem with your procedure or your standards. I am only talking about what "I" will do. I even do not care if another official in my area would give a T for this. They are the one that will have to explain it. And if they work for the right person that night, it will be accepted without problem. Move the game to another location that might be questioned. I would rather not be questioned if the only standard is, "the opposing bench heard it."

To me, "the opposing bench" hearing it may as well be some folks in the stands. Hell, if I'm standing 20 feet away and I can hear it, it's probably too loud; but that's all judgment anyway.

The only defense I'd need is, "he said XXXX, and it was too loud to ignore or warn."

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the opposing bench hearing it than some random fans sitting in the sweat row; but that might be just me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And that's exactly why one situation does not prove the other, as you tried to imply.

It proves it to me, which is all I am concerned about right now. What the rest of you think is up to you.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There's one heckuva big difference between me...or anyone... taking an individual stance on how a rule should be called versus the stance taken by the majority of officials in an area. And as I said, the general consensus so far seems to be that profanity audible in the stands should be "T"d up.

The general consensus on this board, of people that decided to respond. Not the general consensus in all areas and certainly not mine. You know how I know this, I have heard kids use such language and not get a T multiple times. And it was not me that heard it or decided to say or do anything.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You seem to be the voice in the wilderness opposing that. The situation detailed in this thread is different, and it seems the majority of respondants recognize that as such and think that it should be handled differently.

As I said, apples and oranges.

No, there is a very well known football official that tells a story of a coach using certain choice language and when he realized the coach was not talking to him, he did nothing (in my area). So obviously I do not care what the majority here would do. The majority here have to work for an association, that does not mean I am always going to go with the majority on a lot of things. We all do not get games the same way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I still wouldn't call a technical foul.

Originally Posted by DesMoines

I'm with Rich. No way.

Jersey? What jersey? Player? What player? Where's the key to the official's room? Can we get some cold drinks please?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree context matters. I also disagreed with your implication that the context of the OP was insufficient. I felt it was sufficient, in that about the only way I'm letting an F-bomb go when it's loud enough for the opposing bench to hear is with an injury of some sort.

Why is your distinction so important, but my distinction is not? That is what I do not understand. Where in the rules does it say that it is OK to use profanity if you are injured?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Frankly, I expected you to simply say you'd talk to him; the context was already there. That was my only initial point; there was plenty of context to say what you'd do.

I would talk to him and stated I would do that. But you seem caught up on the F-Bomb being so over the top that we must give a T. I even asked why the F-Bomb and not other language that I know are not seen as appropriate? Still waiting on that answer from anyone (I am not going to get it it appears).

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1. see above.
2. I was going for the semi-alliteration. Maybe I could have gone with Wheaton and Wheat Ridge. Or Des Moines and Denver. Or....

You could have. And that would have been better than assuming that someone on here work in the same places.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good grief, it's a euphamism for saying "Fu@k." I wasn't aware there was any confusion there.

Relax it is sarcasm. People I am around do not call that a "bomb." I was just playing with you for God's sake. Stop taking yourself and this conversation so seriously.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To me, "the opposing bench" hearing it may as well be some folks in the stands. Hell, if I'm standing 20 feet away and I can hear it, it's probably too loud; but that's all judgment anyway.

The only defense I'd need is, "he said XXXX, and it was too loud to ignore or warn."

That is not what he said. He said only the bench could hear it and the opposing coach complained. That is what we were responding to, not how many feet you are away from the play you were or if someone else could hear it. I know of gyms where the bench is not close to the fans, so it is possible that only a few people could hear something like that. In other places the stands would have heard it. Again, all of those factors matter to me. That might sound like splitting hairs to you, but this is why that word is not an "automatic" to me. Heck a kid can get a T from me without me even knowing what he said, so I do not know why you are stuck on the language part as the only unacceptable part of this action.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the opposing bench hearing it than some random fans sitting in the sweat row; but that might be just me.

We agree on something. But I really do not care what a coach thinks as I would probably inform him that I likely passed on language from his players too. We are not dealing with angels here.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Jersey? What jersey? Player? What player? Where's the key to the official's room? Can we get some cold drinks please?

They could start a brawl five seconds after the final horn and I wouldn't notice. There are adults present (coaches and likely parents) who are responsible for their little darlings. Once the horn goes, I'm heading for the shower.