Not NFHS!

[zm1283]

I understand the crackdown on taunting. I get it why they are wanting to address it. I just don't see how you could judge this particular play as taunting in any way. If he had turned around and pointed at the defensive player as he was running, fine. If he high-stepped, fine. I just don't see how this is anywhere close to anything like that.

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game. Balls and strikes are off limits by rule, but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I understand the crackdown on taunting. I get it why they are wanting to address it. I just don't see how you could judge this particular play as taunting in any way. If he had turned around and pointed at the defensive player as he was running, fine. If he high-stepped, fine. I just don't see how this is anywhere close to anything like that.

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game. Balls and strikes are off limits by rule, but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

Baseball has nothing to do with this call. Football made a rule to remedy a problem that was unique to their sport. We do not have penalties in baseball that add strikes or balls to an offended team for unsportsmanlike conduct like you do in other sports with either yardage or awarding an opportunity to score like in basketball. The NCAA was specific about this. If any rules body wanted to change a rule in baseball and award runs or award bases based on an unsportsmanlike act, then this would be a good comparison. But that being said umpires in baseball eject coaches and players for all kinds of things that are not stated in the rules, like drawing a line in the sand with a bat. And umpires debate all the time what they can or cannot handle from coaches and players. Mostly those debates are about personal standards, not clear rules or guidelines. This rule has many example of what was over the limit and this was one of them. It is unfortunate, but it is the case.

Peace

[HLin NC]

If I choose not to follow my assigner, I will no longer be assigned.
Kind of hard to officiate when you aren't officiating.

Maybe your state allows independently booked crews but some of us are basically working for a cartel.

[bigjohn]

Bravo, Chymechowder!

You old copy and paster LOL!

[HLin NC]

I can copy and paste too.

From the refstripes.com NCAA thread

chymechowder

Posts: 157

Re: UNS Rule affects Mass. HS Championship Game
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2011, 01:32:01 PM »Quote Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on December 05, 2011, 01:22:15 PM
So today we apparently get the rest of the story - from an attendee at the game. As noted earlier, the hand goes up around the 24-25 yard line. But that's not all - it's followed by the altered stride high step at the 9-10 yard line. The actual flag was at the 9 yard line explaining the next snap going off from the 24 yard line. Also, during each pre-game conference, the R+U gave the coaching staffs the reminder that there would be no unsportsmanlike actions tolerated from either team, and that any such actions prior to a score are treated as a live ball fouls this year.

So after all, there was more than just a hand in the air, and the call was justified.

ok good! if he high stepped, he violated a specific rule. some may still wonder whether the flag should be thrown, but I at least get to take back my provisional anger. if he high stepped, the flag is definitely justifiable.

So since you knew it on 12/5, why continue with the "rant" here on 12/7?

[chymechowder]

uh, I'm not sure if you're serious. but in case you are:

1. that exchange you've posted from refstripes was on 12/5. that was BEFORE any of us had seen the video. LOL, did you not read the rest of that thread? shortly the posts you cite, the video was put up and everyone agreed that there was no highstep. NVFOA himself said afterwards that he had been told incorrect information about the high-stepping. for what it's worth, I had always said pre-video that if the kid did actual taunting or if he highstepped (or violated a spelled out rule), then the flag would've been justified.

2. as for "ranting" in two places. it's a separate forum and a separate conversation. are we only allowed to post about it on one forum?

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game. Balls and strikes are off limits by rule, but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

That is not how baseball works. There is nothing in the rule book which says that "balls and strikes are off limits". How it actually works is they are not allowed to leave their position to argue ball/strike after being warned. So your example of ejecting someone the first time they say something doesn't work. Even if he leaves his position to argue he still must be warned to stop before he is ejected.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game.

In what way? There is no specific rule telling the umpire to do that. No video shown 15 times at the first clinic of the year telling them to do that.

Balls and strikes are off limits by rule

What rule? You insist on documentation on the OP, but then invent rules and then create analogies about them... there is no such rule.

but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

No, you don't... because you're not told to, in any book or clinic. You DO, however, eject them if they come back out after you tell them to cool it.