Can an official besides the WH eject players/coaches if he sees fit?

[KWH]

For the record I did not ever state, nor did I ever suggest, we took a vote!
Restated, for clarification, I have never taken a vote regarding an ejection, nor have I ever "simply overruled" an official regarding an ejection.
1) In my humble opinion, an ejection should NEVER be taken lightly.
2) If an official feels an act that he flagged warrents an ejection, then the result will be an ejection unless another official(s) can provide the "calling official" with information they may be useful to the "calling official" to assist him in finalizing HIS decision. This process is commonly referred to as- "taking him off the call." For this reason, I bring the entire crew together. For further clarification, if an official were to state "I didn't see it," then such official is no longer part of the discussion as they have no useful information to relay to the "calling official," however, the "I didn't see it official" is still part of the crew and it is imparative that he stay in the huddle so that we (the crew) can break the huddle all on the same page.
Why you say?
3) Because, in our state all ejections require a player (or coach) to sit out the next game at the same level! Therefore, all ejections may be appealed. Since our commissioner is part of the review board, he reviews the situation and is part of the decision making process (in conjuction with the state office (who of course reviews the coaches side of the story)) which decides if the appeal will prevail or the ejection stands. Because this IS the process, I have found that is to be extremley important that all members of the crew are aware of the act which warrented the ejection! Why? Simply because the process requires all members of the crew WILL be interviewed regarding the ejection.
And, Yes, we have had situations where one official has reported to the commisioner "Yea Bob, I saw it but I didn't think it warrented an ejection!"
My policy has worked quite well (100%) in preventing that statement from ever being presented to the commissioner! I can say this as in two of the three times I have implemented it (over the last 11 years) the result was no ejection.

Additionally, how our state handles ejection appeals is out of my hands. However, I strongly feel it IS my job as a white hat to get the crew on the same page and to make sure any available information is provided to the "calling official" prior to announcing an ejection has occured.

Finally, in my humble opinion, I believe a "reasonable person" would assert, that for an "unreasonable person" to continually lamblast actual on-field football officials with his usual rhetoric of nefarious comments prior to garnering all the facts surrounding a topic, to be way over the line, foolhardy, and a bit askew!

[ajmc]

Forgive me KWH for reading what YOU wrote, and presuming YOU meant what YOU wrote.

"Then, if we (the jury) agree the situation warrents an ejection, the calling official and the white hat shall (together) report the infraction and the player number to the offending players head coach", are YOUR words, not mine. Forgive me if juries act differently where you live, but usually when juries reach an agreement, it's right after they vote.

YOU indicated, "Once I have been notified the foul warrents an ejection, I will breifly gather the entire crew to discuss the situation." , as YOU further state so, "Not one crew member can honestly tell the commisioner the next day that he was either unaware of the ejection or that he saw the play and did not feel it warranted an ejection!."

Then YOU declare, "This policy works and, it works well. Nuff said! " , which sounds like a blanket endorsement of a routine process.

You neglected to mention my (actual) final observation, "This may work on a very limited scale, but seems like a dangerous precedence to fool around with. "

Now, you're all bent out of shape because I didn't give enough consideration to a lot of "facts surrounding a topic"you forgot to mention . I reread what I wrote and didn't see any lambasting of anyone, which was not my intention or design, although I thought the idea (as you originally presented) was dangerous.

I'm not entirely sure what the, "usual rhetoric of nefarious comments" means, but I didn't notice any.

Do you think, just perhaps, YOUR original posting didn't convey YOUR thoughts exactly, only as YOU intended? Because what you've added doesn't seem all that different from what I began my post about, " I don't have a problem with the Referee reviewing a disqualifying incident with the calling official to give that official an opportunity to rehash and possibly rethink his decision. I think it also reasonable that the Referee should be given the facts involved and an opportunity to counsel the official regarding the appropriatness of the call."

If you pick hard enough on even the smallest pimple, you can draw blood.

[KWH]

Has anybody actually worked with this AJMC (aka ALinupstateNY) bozo?
Can anyone actually confirm that he actually is a football official?

PS to Jaybird;
Thank you for the compliment. It is always nice to see professionals also post on this board. While I guess some bozo's find amusment in reading into posts for the sole purpose of picking it apart, some are able to read it, comprehend it, and move on.

Nuff said

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Nuff said

Well, KWH, it looks like you chose the road to denial and insult, instead of simple acknowledgment and correction, to get you away from misstatement and stubborn overreaction. Unfortunately, but predictably, that only led you to frustration, total ineptitude and flailing about before brininging you all the way to your final destination of pathetic.

I guess you actually did say, "Nuff".

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Well, KWH, it looks like you chose the road to denial and insult, instead of simple acknowledgment and correction, to get you away from misstatement and stubborn overreaction. Unfortunately, but predictably, that only led you to frustration, total ineptitude and flailing about before brininging you all the way to your final destination of pathetic.

I guess you actually did say, "Nuff".

I understood exactly what KWH was saying and his clarification supported my original interpretation of his post. I agree his insult is out of line but I think most people on this board are annoyed by your posts. You are guilty of being too wordy and your thoughts often tend to be contrary to what most officials around the country think.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I understood exactly what KWH was saying and his clarification supported my original interpretation of his post. I agree his insult is out of line but I think most people on this board are annoyed by your posts. You are guilty of being too wordy and your thoughts often tend to be contrary to what most officials around the country think.

Thanks for the tip, now that I know who speaks for "most people on this board" it will be a lot easier to know who to check with first to get my thoughts in the proper alignment. Have I been wrong in thinking the purpose of this board was to evaluate and consider all perspectives, rather than just knuckle under to the loudest viewpoints or annoy those who seem otherwise unable to explain or defend their positions.

I didn't realize there were individuals available who know what, "most officials around the country think". Should I presume that knowledge extends to just about everything?

I thought explaining my comments as much as possible, initially, might help minimize the need for those who insist on highlighting every minute ommission or obscure possible exception, but I guess some just prefer brevity above substance and detail, which helps explain some of the positions taken by some of the more absolutely rigid posters.

Forgive me, but I seem usually to be more impressed and persuaded, by people who are comfortable expalining their positions factually and logically rather than by bluster and volume. I guess it's just easier for me to accept an explanation when the person giving it seems to know what he's talking about. Sometimes habits, that have always worked well, are just hard to break.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks for the tip, now that I know who speaks for "most people on this board" it will be a lot easier to know who to check with first to get my thoughts in the proper alignment. Have I been wrong in thinking the purpose of this board was to evaluate and consider all perspectives, rather than just knuckle under to the loudest viewpoints or annoy those who seem otherwise unable to explain or defend their positions.

I didn't realize there were individuals available who know what, "most officials around the country think". Should I presume that knowledge extends to just about everything?

I thought explaining my comments as much as possible, initially, might help minimize the need for those who insist on highlighting every minute ommission or obscure possible exception, but I guess some just prefer brevity above substance and detail, which helps explain some of the positions taken by some of the more absolutely rigid posters.

Forgive me, but I seem usually to be more impressed and persuaded, by people who are comfortable expalining their positions factually and logically rather than by bluster and volume. I guess it's just easier for me to accept an explanation when the person giving it seems to know what he's talking about. Sometimes habits, that have always worked well, are just hard to break.

Using a lot of words doesn't equate to knowing a lot. In fact, I'm usually most impressed by people who can say a lot in as few words as possible (I don't have that gift).

I'm basing my comments on the fact that every time you post something, several people on this board point out the fact that your opinion is either overly wordy and/or differs from what they have been taught in their area. These opinions come from all over the country. You might notice you don't get a lot of "I agree with ajmc" comments on this board.