![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 12:37pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Sure. Call whatever you like. That case play was not written for you ... it only applies to everyone else.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 12:55pm. |
|
|||
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."
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 09:20pm. |
|
||||
Quote:
The fact is, we don't normally issue a T on this unless they get persistent with it.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example." "If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..." "Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4." "The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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.'
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:53pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example." "If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..." "Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4." "The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this a contradiction? | HugoTafurst | Softball | 2 | Sat Jan 14, 2012 06:04pm |
Fed Case Book contradiction? | JEL | Baseball | 16 | Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:13am |
Contradiction? | greymule | Baseball | 17 | Fri Mar 08, 2002 03:51am |
Contradiction between Fed 8.4.2b and 8.4.2g | Gre144 | Baseball | 6 | Wed Mar 28, 2001 08:52am |
Another OBR contradiction? Bouncing HBP | DDonnelly19 | Baseball | 14 | Thu Mar 22, 2001 01:41am |