Silly Contradiction

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

My point is that whether you see it or not is irrelevant to whether they are trying to influence your call. I think we can dance around it every day and twice on Sunday, the fact is they're trying to influence us. Whether they're yelling "travel," "that's a foul," "three seconds," or "carry," they're trying to influence our calls.

The fact is, we don't normally issue a T on this unless they get persistent with it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

My point is that whether you see it or not is irrelevant to whether they are trying to influence your call. I think we can dance around it every day and twice on Sunday, the fact is they're trying to influence us. Whether they're yelling "travel," "that's a foul," "three seconds," or "carry," they're trying to influence our calls.

The fact is, we don't normally issue a T on this unless they get persistent with it.

I'm not dancing around anything. Following that logic, anytime a coach opens his mouth he is "trying to influence a call" and therefore should never address an official.

It is the judgment of that individual official whether or not a coach is trying to influence a decision based upon that official's interpretation of the conversation. It's that simple to me. And to compare this to the physical act of an assistant coach being on floor is quite ludicrous, IMHO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not dancing around anything. Following that logic, anytime a coach opens his mouth he is "trying to influence a call" and therefore should never address an official.

It is the judgment of that individual official whether or not a coach is trying to influence a decision based upon that official's interpretation of the conversation. It's that simple to me. And to compare this to the physical act of an assistant coach being on floor is quite ludicrous, IMHO.

Not anytime he opens his mouth. If he asks, "why wasn't that a foul" or "did you see that travel," then I'll take that as a legimate question. But I can't see "that's a foul" or "that's a travel" or "you have got to call that carry" as anything but an attempt to influence our decisions. The fact is, to me, this violates the letter of the rule.

That said, I don't really deal well with a coach playing Jeapordy, either, but that's a matter of judgment and HTBT.

I'm not saying we should call it, or even address it, because doing so until he violates the Ps (persistent, personal, or profane) is going to severely limit one's schedule. I just concur with Camron that this is a case where we do not follow the letter of the rule.

Now, whether it gets applied to the AC coming onto the court is a different matter. Personally, I'm not inclined to want to toss an AC who actually came onto the court to control the fight. However, I'm also not inclined to ignore this very clear interpretation, and if I have a fight this year and an AC comes on to help, he'll find himself outside the gym for the remainder of the game. I doubt it will be that big of a deal, since the HC will likely want him watching little Johnny in the locker room.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

I'll tell my supervisor that the assistant was nothing but helpful and beneficial to the situation and had been nothing but that the entire game and it would have been completely against the spirit of the rule to have issued a T. And I'm pretty sure he'd agree with me.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'll tell my supervisor that the assistant was nothing but helpful and beneficial to the situation and had been nothing but that the entire game and it would have been completely against the spirit of the rule to have issued a T. And I'm pretty sure he'd agree with me.

I'm with Camron here. If an adult comes on the court and clearly all he does is help separate participants in a fight or help with an injury, no matter who he is, there's not gonna be a penalty from me.

As part of my pregame I ask the head coach if there are special issues with any player, such as asthma, seizures or an injury that may come into play. Before the rule change, I would go on to tell this coach that if something happens with this (or any other) player that legitimately needs your attention out on the court, consider yourself beckoned, don't wait for me.

For me, that same philosophy applies to the matter at hand.