"That's a foul!"

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

And that's relevant, how?

It's more than fine to be compassionate, but that doesn't allow players to break the rules in the process. Perhaps this is acceptable behavior in your corner of Rome, but here, authority is expected to be respected.



I'd chuckle, too, quite frankly. That still doesn't make it legal.

We don't use a technical foul because we're offended. (I might never use them otherwise.) We use them because to keep behavior in check, whether that behavior bugs us or not.

And you honestly believe that that comment is behavior that needs to be kept in check??

Like someone else already said - OOO.

[bob jenkins]

I'm reminded of the phrase that begins with "When your only tool is a hammer...."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm reminded of the phrase that begins with "When your only tool is a hammer...."

..."everything looks like a nail?"

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm reminded of the phrase that begins with "When your only tool is a hammer...."

I'm reminded of the phrase that says something about "you'd argue with a possum".

FTR, a chuckle at best.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And you honestly believe that that comment is behavior that needs to be kept in check??

Like someone else already said - OOO.

Rock,

Your argument is based significantly more on emotion than it is on facts. If you can't have this discussion logically, I don't see the point of it continuing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Rock,

Your argument is based significantly more on emotion than it is on facts. If you can't have this discussion logically, I don't see the point of it continuing.

You know as well as anyone that communication is more than words. Context matters. Tone matters. Experience helps us determine those things.

Calling this comment an "order" simplisticly dismisses the other 90% of communication.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You know as well as anyone that communication is more than words. Context matters. Tone matters.

There we go. That's lucid.

Context and tone indeed matter. If this sentence came from a coach that I knew well, and it came from a humouous angle, there's no way in hell I'm penalizing that. From a kid I don't know, though? (And I don't know any of them.) I don't see how any context would make this permissible for a kid to talk to an official that way.

Bear in mind, too, that Juggling passed on penalizing this sentence. Often times, passing comes off as condoning, so what happened a bit later? The kid mouthed off again. This is why you have to nip those imperative sentences in the bud.

FWIW, "That's a foul!" very seldom gets a second thought from me. It's a declarative sentence, so it's a statement of opinion (or perceived fact?) that's not directed at anyone. I could see it as the last straw of an ABS T, but that's about it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There we go. That's lucid.

Context and tone indeed matter. If this sentence came from a coach that I knew well, and it came from a humouous angle, there's no way in hell I'm penalizing that. From a kid I don't know, though? (And I don't know any of them.) I don't see how any context would make this permissible for a kid to talk to an official that way.

Bear in mind, too, that Juggling passed on penalizing this sentence. Often times, passing comes off as condoning, so what happened a bit later? The kid mouthed off again. This is why you have to nip those imperative sentences in the bud.

FWIW, "That's a foul!" very seldom gets a second thought from me. It's a declarative sentence, so it's a statement of opinion (or perceived fact?) that's not directed at anyone. I could see it as the last straw of an ABS T, but that's about it.

1) there's a whole range of responses between ignoring and T-ing.

2) I, for one, read the statement as along the lines of "(I wish the ref would) lighten up on the calls a bit" or "(Would you please) lighten up on the calls a bit?"

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2) I, for one, read the statement as along the lines of "(I wish the ref would) lighten up on the calls a bit" or "(Would you please) lighten up on the calls a bit?"

Or "We're getting killed by 50 points and you're calling a foul on every possession - I have a test in 5 hours now that it's 2:00am due to your over-officiating this game. Can you please give us a break? I want to go home and forget this debacle of a game."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) there's a whole range of responses between ignoring and T-ing.

Which is why I said - way back in post #15 - to tell the kid to knock it off and move on. Going straight to a T and then justifying it by saying the kid was giving me an order and I need to make him respect my authority is simply ridiculous.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) there's a whole range of responses between ignoring and T-ing.

2) I, for one, read the statement as along the lines of "(I wish the ref would) lighten up on the calls a bit" or "(Would you please) lighten up on the calls a bit?"

1. Fully agree.

2. I think herein lies our divide. I can only read/hear what's in front on me. What you inserted parenthetically makes a vast difference, and I sure wouldn't penalize that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

1. Fully agree.

2. I think herein lies our divide. I can only read/hear what's in front on me. What you inserted parenthetically makes a vast difference, and I sure wouldn't penalize that.

You're the only one reading this as some sort of order. Feel free to do as you wish in your games, but I can guarantee you if that was my justification for going straight to a T, I'd be on a strict diet of YMCA games for two years.

Me, if it comes from the bench, the coach gets a quick word about keeping a reign on his bench. If it's from a player on the court, a quick word will do.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bainsey

1. Fully agree.

2. I think herein lies our divide. I can only read/hear what's in front on me. What you inserted parenthetically makes a vast difference, and I sure wouldn't penalize that.

So, you normally assume the worst possible meaning?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There we go. That's lucid.

Context and tone indeed matter. If this sentence came from a coach that I knew well, and it came from a humouous angle, there's no way in hell I'm penalizing that. From a kid I don't know, though? (And I don't know any of them.) I don't see how any context would make this permissible for a kid to talk to an official that way.

Bear in mind, too, that Juggling passed on penalizing this sentence. Often times, passing comes off as condoning, so what happened a bit later? The kid mouthed off again. This is why you have to nip those imperative sentences in the bud.

FWIW, "That's a foul!" very seldom gets a second thought from me. It's a declarative sentence, so it's a statement of opinion (or perceived fact?) that's not directed at anyone. I could see it as the last straw of an ABS T, but that's about it.

My response to the first statement would have been "that's enough" or "that will be your last comment" or something to that effect if I felt the kid were being a smart-a$$. And I would make sure his coach or several of teammates heard me say it. Then if anything else comes out his mouth it would be an easy T.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Rock,

Your argument is based significantly more on emotion than it is on facts. If you can't have this discussion logically, I don't see the point of it continuing.

Doesn't the fact that the vast majority of those responding to this see it the same way as Rockyroad does say anything at all to you? You're sounding very "fiasco-ish". And I mean inexperienced...