T or not T, that is the question?

[efbyon]

...I do know of an official from our officials association that actually called it the way the NF ruling states from the casebook, per Scrapper1 above. Boys varsity game. home team thought they won the game, and one of the home team players, presumably for celebatory purposes, took off his shirt within the sight of the official in question. Technical foul. Game did go into overtime, where (I think) the home team eventually won.

I haven't talked to this official in a while, but he is still a member of our group. I certainly would like to know what his rationale was. NF actually did state that the rule was to be applied in "all situations," per what was mentioned in the new rule rationales in the back of the book in the year the new rule was inserted, so it's possible he may have been keying off that.

But I would have to agree with everyone else: unless I have reason to believe that for him taking off his shirt was because he was truly attempting to be unsporting in some way, such as trying to show me up or an opponent, then likely I am letting this slide.

Fred

[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

[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.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agree.

Kinda like a blarge.

Bull sh1t

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I'm calling the T....if I want to make sure that I never advance to working varsity ball.

Interesting. I know some officials that are afraid they won't advance if they DON'T call something like this, particularly if they have the book the back them up.

Let's take this a step further, though. Instead of taking off a shirt, let's say A-1 points and taunts B-2 after the buzzer. For those that won't whack a shirt removal, would you whack this?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's take this a step further, though. Instead of taking off a shirt, let's say A-1 points and taunts B-2 after the buzzer. For those that won't whack a shirt removal, would you whack this?

The chances of me seeing this are virtually zero. I get tunnel vision after the horn blows. I see two things; the table and the exit.

[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.

[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.

[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.