Aggressively approaching official

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I guess it is a matter of whether you consider it two separate actions or one. I could go either way depending on the timeframe involved. I don't remember what the specific timing was in the video and I don't care to go watch it again but if it was the first response....then a T...then a moment before the jacket toss, that could easily be another. But if it was all in one moment, I don't think it is right to call two T's for one act.

Did you read what icallfouls posted? By rule the jacket toss is considered a separate act...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Did you read what icallfouls posted? By rule the jacket toss is considered a separate act...

... for throwing the clothing on to the floor. In this case the clothing was thrown to an assistant coach. I don't have a horse in this race, just a point of fact.

[Adam]

Kinda reminds me of a summer game this year. Got the assistant for coming onto the court to protest a no-call, then got him again as he 'cheered' me while I reported the first T.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... for throwing the clothing on to the floor. In this case the clothing was thrown to an assistant coach. I don't have a horse in this race, just a point of fact.

The first T was given while the jacket was on. If I am reading correctly, there's rule support for a second T in regards to throwing equipment or clothing on to the floor OR the emphatic removal of a jacket in response to a call/no call. A totally separate act and it seems pretty clear what they want, at least in the NCAA-M's ruleset.

I believe our varsity assigners would want this addressed in the same fashion, without warning.

[Rich]

It amazes me how many officials look for a reason to avoid properly ejecting a coach who clearly deserves it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

It amazes me how many officials look for a reason to avoid properly ejecting a coach who clearly deserves it.

So, are you suggesting that you'd eject a coach who yells at you while waving their arms around but wouldn't if they only yelled at you?

Or would you eject a coach who took their jacket off while yelling at you but not just for either one alone?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, are you suggesting that you'd eject a coach who yells at you while waving their arms around but wouldn't if they only yelled at you?

Or would you eject a coach who took their jacket off while yelling at you but not just for either one alone?

No, I'm saying that I'd eject a coach who had to be restrained, removed a coat, and threw it after receiving the first technical. And would lose no sleep over it.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, I'm saying that I'd eject a coach who had to be restrained, removed a coat, and threw it after receiving the first technical. And would lose no sleep over it.

+1!!!

And trying to get out of it by clinging to an argument as flimsy as it was all part of one action is just weak, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, I'm saying that I'd eject a coach who had to be restrained, removed a coat, and threw it after receiving the first technical. And would lose no sleep over it.

SOunds good to me. Seems like we may have been talking past each other. That is not the situation I was necessarily thinking of.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... for throwing the clothing on to the floor. In this case the clothing was thrown to an assistant coach. I don't have a horse in this race, just a point of fact.

Leave something out? The operative word in icallfouls post would be the "OR"...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Emphatically removing one’s coat in response to a call/no-call or throwing equipment or clothing on to the floor.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

By rule the jacket toss is considered a separate act...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... for throwing the clothing on to the floor. In this case the clothing was thrown to an assistant coach. I don't have a horse in this race, just a point of fact.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Leave something out? The operative word in icallfouls post would be the "OR"...

I was specifically referring to the toss, not the removal. According to the rule posted, removal can be charged with a technical, but a toss must be to the floor. Again, just a point of fact, not an opinion on the play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was specifically referring to the toss, not the removal. According to the rule posted, removal can be charged with a technical, but a toss must be to the floor. Again, just a point of fact, not an opinion on the play.

You left off some important words:

"including, but not limited to"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Did you read what icallfouls posted? By rule the jacket toss is considered a separate act...

Like I said, I didn't go back and watch the video. icallfouls only asserted that he felt it was two separate actions. I didn't disagree with his opinion there (I didn't check the video to see). However, neither the rules nor icallfouls claim it is automatically two actions and T's just because a jacket comes off....just that the jacket removal in disgust is enough for a T.

If the Jacket came after the first T (perhaps in response to the T) then sure, it is clearly a separate act and two T's. But it is not necessarily two T's if they are done at the same time. It would be like giving two T's for a coach waiving their arms while yelling. They ruling doesn't say or even imply that you dissect one action into parts to give two Ts.