I've never argued, "Using a lot of words doesn't equate to knowing a lot" any more than I'd argue brevity is more important than substance. I've listened to, and responded to many, different perspectives as clearly and as completely as possible. The fact that "several people", often the same people, offer different opinions doesn't mean either position is somehow golden. I've also stated that reality suggests we are all governed, to some degree, to local policies, traditions and standards.

I'm not seeking, nor do I have any great need for a lot of, "I agree with ajmc" comments from anyone, and presume that anyone who has a different perspective, and wants to bother to share their perspective, would be (should be) comfortable in doing so.

If I offer a perspective and anyone can persuade me of either a better way, or something materially wrong with my perspective I will give serious consideration to adjusting, and have done so with great results. I'm sorry but, "Because that's the way we do it", "Our supervisor said so" or any other suggestion based only on some level of, "because" usually doesn't motivate me to change anything.

If someone can show me where, or how, I'm wrong, I'm only too happy to adjust because it helps me avoid unnecessary mistakes. If you have a problem with something I've suggested, please let me know, but to be helpful tell me where you think I've gone wrong. I may agree with you, I may not. If you ask me a question, I'll do my best to give you the best and most complete answer I can. If you want to throw rocks, understand sometimes I choose to throw rocks back.

Ours is a practice of chasing perfection, knowing full well we'll NEVER catch it and the more we learn usually points out how much more we have to learn. Sorry about the number of words it may take me to make a point, but for those of you obsessed with word count, you get to choose whether to simply ignore whatever I offer, or focus on what I'm trying to say.

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. In many places, I would say, that the ejection does need to meet with the (implicit at least) approval of the white hat, regardless of what the books actually say.

Well jaybird, anytime you feel up to actually proving anyone wrong about anything....go for it.

I guess I just don't understand this viewpoint. As an official, it's my job to make judgements on plays as to their legality, and to call fouls if I feel the action was illegal. Part of that is the decision on whether an action calls for an ejection. I don't mind, and always appreciate, any member of my crew to question my call with "what did you see" or "are you sure" type questions if they think I may have made a mistake. However, the final decision on my calls is always mine. For that matter, if a WH had an ejection, we would question him just as he would properly question us. Questioning and discussing is always fine; overruling is never acceptable.

The rule book specifically gives the authority to eject to the covering official. Any decision by a WH to try and usurp this authority is a big mistake. In my opinion, it's a sign of serious problems on a crew.

I agree with RichMSN
 

I have to agree with RichMSN
Some of you appear to assume a blanket authority has been granted to every black hat working any game at any level to issue an ejection. For an example of this thinking please see the survey at the beginning of this thread.
This line of thinking is incorrect! There ARE situations where a white hat would step in and correct and official who has (or is attempting to) disqualify a player.
For example consider this:
A player has been given three penalties for failure to wear a mouthpiece and on the third flag the covering (black hat) officials decides the player is ejected for not following his direction. This ejection has no rule book support and would be not be allowed by the White Hat.
There are many similar examples.

I don't think we disagree as much as it might seem like. As crew members, we don't let others make mistakes if we can help it. If you were the Umpire on this crew and the WH wanted to eject the kid for three failure to wear equipment penalties, you'd step in and correct the WH and tell him that the ejection has no rule book support. Same thing if he wanted to penalize the coach for a personal foul for cursing instead of an USC. You would correct the other official no matter what color hat he was wearing. If the WH had an ejection, I would hope you would question him about it and make sure he's doing the right thing.

Granted the WH has the final word in that he's the one that steps out and gives the signal. He is the spokesman for the crew, and if he gives the PF signal for cursing, there isn't much you can do. But if I properly DQ a player for what I judge to be a flagerant foul, and a WH refused to enforce the penalty per the rules, he is quilty of a serious error and is overstepping his authority. As the covering official that decision is mine and mine alone.

Agree with JimD
 

Very well said JimD, I agree with you completely! :)

I am reluctant however, to partake in the survey as it does not really have a "common sense approach" option!

My only problem with KWH's approach is that there are no eyes on the players. If something has just happened that may or may not warrant an ejection there are likely rising tensions, and an increased possibility of further possible ejections.

How or where do you hold your conference to keep everything under control.

This is the reason you'll never see 7 officials in a conversation at the highest levels, because someone has to be watching the players.

When I need to confer with my crew one official is left on observe mode, usually either the opposite wing or the BJ. After the first crew conference I will then check in with the observing official to make sure he had nothing to add to that conference and so he knows what is going on.

I had a situation (I was R) where a quick pass over the middle ended with a "head shot" and a fight errupted in the space between the U and BJ. The other 4 officials broke up the fight and conferenced for what seemed like 5 minutes, while I observed the players. I have to tell you it was tempting to get in there and get the details, but those were the 4 guys who had the action. When they broke their huddle U and BJ brought me the results. No problems. 3 ejections on the field and one guy off the sideline who left the team box.

I don't disagree with either of you. But a newbie poster seems to have his shorts in a knot over something -- like a WH stepping on him and hurting his feelings, perhaps -- and the one thing the WH *usually* has on a crew is experience.

If an official on my crew sees a spear and tells me that "he's got to go" then I step out and report it and we both go to the sidelines. But if something is marginal and two officials have coverage and one wants to eject and the other doesn't -- both officials have made a decision, perhaps conflicting. The "eject" decision doesn't carry any more weight to me than the "don't eject" decision. That's where the WH comes in -- to get input from both and try to come to a consensus and if not, to make a decision.

I value my crew and I trust their judgment. And I've tried talking myself into a wing position from time to time but nobody on the crew wants the WH. :D

I'd like the OP to come back after working as a crew chief for about 10-15 years and see if his perspective has changed at all.

I am certainly not afraid of getting my feelings hurt so don't downsize me just because im starting out on the high school level. I have been corrected and learned from it. Its pretty obvious that there are mixed feelings on this issue. If I make a call and judge that it was flagrant I will discuss this with the Referee. Im not going to throw someone out of a game just to make myself feel important. I just want to be as professional as I can be when im working a game. I see people that come to work a game that are texting on their cell phones between plays, shirt untucked, using a wash rag that they have spray painted yellow to use as a penalty flag, etc. and it drives me nuts! Another thing that seems to me to be not professional is not enforcing a penalty just because there are :10 left in the game and the WH is the one choosing not to enforce it. Im sorry if you disagree but Im a strong supporter of the term "rules are rules" and we are being assigned to and paid for that game to enforce those rules. If your not going to enforce a penalty just because you want to leave a little bit earlier then why are you out there to begin with? If you don't want to be there then don't come. Aside from that, its no question that expierence is a key factor in officiating but its also overrated. Just because an official you refer to as a "newbie" calls a foul that is grounds for disqualification and he wants to enforce that call doesn't mean he is automatically wrong in doing so. Feel free as a WH to discuss it with him and tell him why he shouldn't DQ a player or coach and why he should but DO NOT overrule his call just because he is starting out. Let him make the discision.

Brandon,
I think you really need to get on a crew before you start forming opinions about and telling crew-experienced officials how crew dynamics work. Rec ball really doesn't count for much in this area.
Also, be real careful about that "rules are rules" mind set. Learn that there can be a great difference between the written rule and the spirit of the rule(s). Operating with a black and white mind set in what can often be a variety of greys can and will get you into a lot of trouble.

Not telling anyone how anything works I'm just stating my opinion my friend

And showing a great deal of inexperience while doing so, too.

well I apologize then. Ill keep my opinions to myself and just ask my questions.