T or not T, that is the question?

[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