T or not T, that is the question?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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