Just A this Q: Why do games have officials?

Because the teams, players, coaches won't always agree; let alone know the rules.

It was a poster earlier in the string that suggested that.

My opinion is that officials should leave immediately after the game. However, when in Rome, or in this case, Massachusetts, abide by their protocols.

Suggest you ask Calvin.

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandho...rgm8wAom-EnYvo

In softball, it makes a little more sense as you would have an objective third party who could "eject" the miscreants and file the appropriate reports. I can't think of a way this would affect the outcome of the game that was already essentially complete.

In basketball, if the officials were to assess technical fouls, you have the possibility that the free throws could extend the game, making the situation even worse.

I'm not a referee, but I don't think that once a game was finished, an official could un-finish it and award free throws. But I'll let the referees chime in on that point.

Did you have to ? :eek:

The game is not finished until all the officials approve the score and "leave the visual confines of the playing area". By rule, the game can be finished after time has apparently expired, if one or more officials still remain on the floor.

Exactly. The officials are arbiters of a contest. In the case of some sports, some of the rules can affect the safety of participants as well as deciding the contest.

Nowhere in that job description do I see anything about enforcing decorum except insofar as it facilitates the contest. You need a certain degree of decorum to move the proceedings along, inasmuch as certain types of bad sportsmanship could be a distraction, so -- an unfortunate necessity -- officials sometimes need to enforce decorum.

That excuse goes away completely once the contest is finished. The MIAA has apparently tacked on something to the job description of game officials at interscholastic contests by having them oversee a post-game ceremony. Why not leave that job to any number of other personnel whose presence might otherwise be required at extracurricular activities at a school?

The MIAA apparently said at the time that either the mandate of handshakes or their being supervised by the people who officiated at the game just concluded "improved sportsmanship". I don't know if that's supposed to be euphemism for "resulted in fewer trips to the emergency room" or just "looks so pretty". 1st of all, mandated handshaking is a charade, giving only the appearance of comity. 2nd, having the officials there is supposed to...what? If you expect there to be trouble, you want to embroil the game officials in it too?

The basketball situation is the worst because it's among those that take place in a gym, &, because of the way the rules are written, introduces doubt into the outcome of the game, i.e. when exactly it ends, which was discussed at that time in the basketball section here. One could even envision scenarios in a game that ended close where a team might try to "game" the handshakes by provoking "fouls" by their erstwhile opponents. But even in sports where the officials have an easy getaway & the final score isn't on the line, this looks like a way to squeeze something extra out of game officials at their expense, like drafting them to class up the act. Feh.

You say that like I might have actually had a choice! ;)

Once the game is over you and partner(s) leave the field immediately and proceed to the umpire area or wherever. Do no interact with either team or fans.