T or not T, that is the question?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was posted on the NF site and I felt it was interesting considering the previous conversations.

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).

[M&M Guy]

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).

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

Agree.

Kinda like a blarge.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agree.

Kinda like a blarge.

And BOOM! Like clockwork

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agree.

Kinda like a blarge.

Bull sh1t

[just another ref]

What's the difference? It's black and white in the interp.

Removed jersey = Technical foul

no conditions given

You say you don't like this, so you wouldn't call it. For the record, I wouldn't either.

[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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Double fouls aren't in the rulebook?

They are. So is the block/charge definition. The two conflict with each other.
Reading the rules, there is no way both could be in the same play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

They are. So is the block/charge definition. The two conflict with each other.
Reading the rules, there is no way both could be in the same play.

Ok Woodrow.

[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.