T or not T, that is the question?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I said almost the same thing, but for some reason that does not seem to work for you. Oh, you know someone from my area (even though we likely do not work for all the same people or in the same conferences), not sure how many times I need to say that either.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

[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 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

[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

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.