T or not T, that is the question?
 

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

What do we do here?

Peace

Nope...no T from me.

Based on others' previous opinions, nothing other than resume play with 1.5 seconds left, assuming that the official had definite knowledge.

No technical foul here...this is an honest mistake by the player who thought the game was over...we get paid for our judgment of the rules...use good judgment here.

No T from me.

From the '05-'06 NFHS Interps:

It doesn't matter if the kid thought the game was over. In the interp, the game horn actually had sounded, and it's still a technical foul. The uniform may not be used for demonstrative purposes.

I still wouldn't call a technical foul. May the lord of the NFHS have mercy on my soul.

I'm with Rich. No way.

+1

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). :D

This is where our judgment comes in.

So you are going to whack the kid...really?

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?

I'm calling the T....













....if I want to make sure that I never advance to working varsity ball.

I'm sure it was out of my primary.

Believe it or not...
 

...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

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.

Agree.

Kinda like a blarge.

And BOOM! Like clockwork

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.)

Bull sh1t

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?

Double fouls aren't in the rulebook?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Ok Woodrow. ;)

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.

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.

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.

So, does the fence hurt your Dexter?

Another good question and interesting point.....

Yes, I would whack that if I saw it. The difference to me? This one is definitely unsporting behavior. The other one is premature exuberance with no intent to commit an unsporting act. And unfortunately the rules don't delineate the difference between unsporting behavior and over-celebrating.

How can be I be on the fence when I said I definitely wouldn't call the "T" in the OP?"

I just don't have a good explanation for not doing so. :)

This is one area where I agree with Rut, we don't work for the NFHS. I work for the assigner in my area, who has his own chain to which he answers. The NFHS can put out any interps and POEs they want, but if I'm not going to get backed here, I'm not making the calls. The vast majority of the time, however, my group follows the interps and POEs as written.

But if I called a T for pulling off the shirt (in celebration) after the horn sounds, there would be a come-to-Jesus meeting soon to follow.

I've already checked the table on the previous timeout (or the game is so lopsided there's nothing worth checking for). Horn, me, exit. I consider it good planning when I'm positioned right next to the door when that horn blows.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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. ;)

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." ;)

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. :D

That's my take on it.

How's this for context?
 

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

:rolleyes:

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.)

E. Fire code violation; game postponed.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

A certain ref in Nevada would be very proud. ;)

I wonder who that would be?
 

Be nice!!!! :D

Peace

+1

You'd undoubtedly get a rash of "but the game is OVER!" objections, and perhaps never see an angrier throng of individuals, but if they knew everyone is responsible for their behavior until the true game's end, that lesson wouldn't have to be learned the hard way.

True. :D

But, good lord! If you can't use 2-8-1 after a fan uses projectile flames, when can you use it!?

I don't know about you, but I'd be leery of T'ing a crowd that includes those that have projectile fireworks...unlike that player, I paid good money for my shirt! ;)

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.

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.

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....


Good grief, it's a euphamism for saying "Fu@k." I wasn't aware there was any confusion there.

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.

It proves it to me, which is all I am concerned about right now. What the rest of you think is up to you.

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.

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

Ignorance Is Bliss ...
 

Jersey? What jersey? Player? What player? Where's the key to the official's room? Can we get some cold drinks please?

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? ;)

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).

You could have. And that would have been better than assuming that someone on here work in the same places. ;)

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.

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.

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

They could start a brawl five seconds after the final horn and I wouldn't notice. There are adults present (coaches and likely parents) who are responsible for their little darlings. Once the horn goes, I'm heading for the shower.

OK, I'll keep playing
 

It's a local rule. :D

Because, as I stated before, in most areas it's considered the big'n. Why is it worse than sh1t or damn? <shrug> I don't know. It is what it is.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, to be honest. I didn't assume anything, I was just wrong. I've never actually met someone from Illinois that wasn't from Chicago, maybe that's why.

I don't want to stop.

Yeah, I know I added the 20 feet thing to make a point.

The only thing the kid in the OP did wrong was the word, so perhaps that's why?

With this, we agree on more than we disagree. But I'll add that I wouldn't have passed on a similar issue with his player. If it's mumbled under his breath and only I hear it (and maybe a teammate or two), I'll talk to him. If he says it so the opponents can hear it, well, wrong place wrong time kid.

No, just you will be giving a lot of Ts if that is your only way to handle things in certain places.

I obviously do not concern myself with "most areas." If that was the case I would not worry about darn side panels on jerseys. Oh, that is in the rules too and when discussed people said their state did not care about those rules. So why worry about what others do in "most areas?"

Just because someone here might live in the same region, does not mean we all work for the same people. Actually I am not aware of anyone here that works most leagues I do, despite our actual address.

I see.

I know, but not apart of the original conversation.

Good, but this is why for me nothing is "automatic."

But it appears the words were said after a missed shot. If that is all that took place, I would rather talk to the player than give a T. I do not have to give a T to prove I am there and will not tolerate certain behavior. Heck we all the time weigh other actions, not sure why this is so different?

Peace

No way... calling a technical foul here would be a travesty. Have some common sense.

Sorry Billy...
 

If I call that T, I'm going to having more than my share of cold drinks ... either from the bleachers or after all the 3rd, 4th & 5th grade "noncompetitive" games I'll be getting.

No effing way. (Somebody T me.)

Game is not over until the officials leave. You have no choice but to T. If not, you are setting aside a rule. If you set aside a rule, you have no support.

I am horrified by the number of you who would call a "T" in this case. Put the rulebook aside and use a little common sense.

Common sense = "How come everyone else doesn't think like I do?"

While I agree with you on this play, the rule makers do not.

Also, the idea of using common sense should be used carefully; and only based on what's expected in your area. There very well may be locales where the powers that be want this called according to the rule and case.