Silly Contradiction

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is too much video tape not to apply the rule in this situation.

Amen to that. At the NCAA level video goes without saying even with D3 games since they may be online, let alone the videos shot by the individual schools. One of the NCAAW video rule updates last season dealt with assistants who came off the bench in a televised D1 game in a situation that nearly turned into a fight. The officials were taken to task in the video for not ejecting the assistants.

NCAA or HS you never know who is sitting in the stands and/or who has a video camera. If an assistant comes onto the court during a fight in a high school game and he/she isn’t tossed there’s a better than average chance that info is getting back to the local governing body for that sport…and you’re sunk. Those who hire and pay us will have a lot easier time defending us if we follow the rule book.

[Bad Zebra]

In addition to the excellent points above, I think the Fed is further emphasizing that ONLY the head coach is responsible for the conduct of the players.

If they allowed assistants onto the court in this scenario, then the assistant becomes an active, recognized participant in the management of the team as a whole. I doubt the Fed wants to start legislating THEIR behavior in addition to the head coach.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

In addition to the excellent points above, I think the Fed is further emphasizing that ONLY the head coach is responsible for the conduct of the players.

If they allowed assistants onto the court in this scenario, then the assistant becomes an active, recognized participant in the management of the team as a whole. I doubt the Fed wants to legislating THEIR behavior in addition to the head coach.

But I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they did. Did anyone notice there is an entire new section on responsibilities of game management?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

In addition to the excellent points above, I think the Fed is further emphasizing that ONLY the head coach is responsible for the conduct of the players.

If they allowed assistants onto the court in this scenario, then the assistant becomes an active, recognized participant in the management of the team as a whole. I doubt the Fed wants to legislating THEIR behavior in addition to the head coach.

You know what? In a fight situation, I WANT the assistants as an active, recognized participant in the management of the team in this specific situation. Just because one could allow assistants to help in this situation doesn't mean you have to extend any other "rights" afforded to the head coach.

I'm not sure I understand your last point either. The NFHS already legislates behavior allowed by the assistant versus a head coach.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The logic I can see is that the head coach is the person in charge.

Camron, you say there's "no way" you're tossing the assistant if he/she enters the court. How about if Team B's coach points it out to you and/or your partner? I know if I'm Team B's HC or assistant I'll be pointing it out because that's potentially two FTs and the ball for my team.

Do you also give those coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You're allowed to have opinions about whether a rule is right or fair or not.

But it really bothers me that an official (of any sport) would state that they know and understand the rule but would never enforce it correctly - on purpose.

On the same line as above...

Are you saying that you call T's on coaches or bench personnel when they say travel or foul from the bench. Their only purpose in stating it is trying to get you to call it, trying to influence your decision. I doubt you call a T despite a clear and direct rule that says you should. Why not?

Do you give T"s when you see an assistant standing up at the bench in normal play or do you have them sit down? Why not issue the T? There is nothing in the rule that excepts it.

When a substitute steps one or two steps into the court before being beckoned but they stop when you tell them to wait, do you also T them? Didn't think so.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you also give coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.

Ah. Lovely. The "I can come up with a rule no one enforces to the letter, so that means I can do whatever the heck I want out there" defense.

Sure. Call whatever you like. That case play was not written for you ... it only applies to everyone else.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ah. Lovely. The "I can come up with a rule no one enforces to the letter, so that means I can do whatever the heck I want out there" defense.

Sure. Call whatever you like. That case play was not written for you ... it only applies to everyone else.

There are a lot of times we do not call T's that could be called because they don't make the game better and the offender doesn't deserve the punishment. If you want to referee strictly in a black and white world, go right ahead but you can't be honest and do it only where you like and, at the same time, insist that others must call one or the other just because it is listed in one spot while the others are listed somewhere else.

And as far as I know, the NFHS hasn't published a list of which ones to call and which ones to not call...they're all to be called according to anything they've ever published. But, we know that really isn't what is done. So, if you're not going to call them all, then you have to apply some amount of intelligent game management to decide when it is the right time to utilize the T. Even if the book, case, or interpretation gives you a time you can call it, it doesn't mean it is always the right time to call it....even if you are backed up by the book.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you also give those coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.



...

That's based on the judgment of the official. if they merely point it out, they are not attempting to influence my decision b/c I haven't made one yet. If I make a decision and then they argue about it, that's "attempting to influence an official's decision."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's based on the judgment of the official. if they merely point it out, they are not attempting to influence my decision b/c I haven't made one yet. If I make a decision and then they argue about it, that's "attempting to influence an official's decision."

You're assuming they don't think you see it. From their tone, that's rarely the case. Frankly, AFAC, they are absolutely trying to influence our calls; we just don't follow this one to the letter unless we want to fall back on it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

You're assuming they don't think you see it. From their tone, that's rarely the case. Frankly, AFAC, they are absolutely trying to influence our calls; we just don't follow this one to the letter unless we want to fall back on it.

Well, if I'm the official, I would know whether or not I saw it. If I saw it, I would say, "Coach, I see that". If I didn't see it, I would say, "Ok, I got you ( or thanks coach)." It's what is or isn't said by the coach(es) from that point on that, in my judgment, determines whether or not they are trying to influence my decision.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you also give those coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.

My scenario isn’t attempting to influence an official’s decision if the HC/assistant says “Ref, their assistant is on the court.” If that’s the case then they’re pointing out fact. I could always choose to ignore them.

Now, when I’m sorting out what happened after the mayhem and I explain the penalties to both coaches and, in that explanation, I neglect to mention a flagrant technical on Team A’s assistant and the HC of Team B reminds me Team A’s assistant was on the court, what then? Better for Team A’s HC to be upset for me doing what I’m supposed to do – which, again, can be defended by my supervisor – than Team B’s HC to be upset for me NOT doing what I’m supposed to do.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My scenario isn’t attempting to influence an official’s decision if the HC/assistant says “Ref, their assistant is on the court.” If that’s the case then they’re pointing out fact. I could always choose to ignore them.

That is exactly what they're doing. If they didn't want to try to influence you to call them for it, they wouldn't mention it.

The fact remains that despite how many case plays there are around technical fouls, there are FAR, FAR more that fit the rule and/or case play which go uncalled than are called. This one, even with a case play, seems like a plumbing job.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My scenario isn’t attempting to influence an official’s decision if the HC/assistant says “Ref, their assistant is on the court.” If that’s the case then they’re pointing out fact. I could always choose to ignore them.
....

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is exactly what they're doing. If they didn't want to try to influence you to call them for it, they wouldn't mention it.
...

No, it's exactly as Jet and I have already said, it's pointing out a fact. After I address the act and/or their comment and they continue chirp about it, THEN it becomes trying to influence an official's decision.

And your comparison between a statement a coach makes and a physical act that can be seen by all makes no sense. If you don't want to call a T for an AC breaking up a fight, good. But, don't make up some apples & oranges comparison in order to justify it; just stand by "I won't call it.'

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is exactly what they're doing. If they didn't want to try to influence you to call them for it, they wouldn't mention it.

The fact remains that despite how many case plays there are around technical fouls, there are FAR, FAR more that fit the rule and/or case play which go uncalled than are called. This one, even with a case play, seems like a plumbing job.

Okay, say I agree with you. You’re still not addressing part two of my previous comment. Team B’s HC advises you of the situation. You don’t give a flagrant technical to Team A’s assistant. After the game, Team B’s coach tells his AD. His AD contacts your supervisor/assignor and sends him/her a DVD of the game – a distinct possibility regardless since there was a fight. Your supervisor/assignor looks at the video and determines the HC of Team B was correct.

You tell your supervisor/assignor…what? You didn’t eject the assistant because you didn’t want to? I’ll admit honesty might be the best way to go since chances are you’re going to lose part, if not all, of your schedule but none of the answers you give is going to be satisfactory.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You're allowed to have opinions about whether a rule is right or fair or not.

But it really bothers me that an official (of any sport) would state that they know and understand the rule but would never enforce it correctly - on purpose.

Longhorn,

I think applying common sense is the question here. Nobody enforces all rules by the letter all the time. On purpose. I've seen opinions on both sides of this topic that make a lot of sense to me. I bet rules makers expect us to apply common sense, as well.