Author Topic: While we're talking about rule changes...  (Read 10828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2936
  • FAN REACTION: +115/-27
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2019, 05:21:55 PM »
I prefer to have explicit rules justification before I invoke the nuclear option for a non-flagrant act.

In my state, any DQ carries a fine.  Subsequent DQs carry heftier fines plus suspensions.  If I DQ a player for “too many DBPFs” (or for any other reason without rules support), I won’t be calling for a couple of weeks.

Offline brettjr2005

  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-3
  • CIF
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2019, 08:25:12 PM »
In my state, any DQ carries a fine.  Subsequent DQs carry heftier fines plus suspensions.  If I DQ a player for “too many DBPFs” (or for any other reason without rules support), I won’t be calling for a couple of weeks.
Wait, you're not saying that you get fined if a player DQs himself, are you? Or that the player or school gets fined?

All options here seem crazy, although the school option is somewhat reasonable.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2116
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2019, 08:58:22 PM »
I propose this not from an "urgency to DQ players" standpoint, but from a "give us another tool to held get players under control" standpoint.  We've all had games with that one player who keeps doing a lot of little stuff after the play and picks up a couple of DBPFs, but no one act that rises to the level of a flagrant act.  This would give a clear, explicit rules justification for us to count these physical acts that aren't legitimate football acts as unsportsmanlike acts, rather than the personal fouls that they BY DEFINITION are under the current rules.

It's funny how we've kinda gone full circle with this.  We'd always scold the lesser/uneducated officials that would use UNS fouls when they shouldn't.  They basically used it when they felt the player was "being a dick".  Now, that's kind of the way we want to use it.  PF when it's continuing action (late hit, pile pick, etc) and UNS when you're just being a dick (slap to the head, push opponent down, etc).

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3848
  • FAN REACTION: +99/-283
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2019, 06:32:57 AM »
I'm pretty sure that those of us that are not the "lesser/uneducated officials" understand that we need a rules change before we can call a purely physical contact foul USC but I believe that we're simply asking for NFHS to allow us to call the act what it actually is.  A good number of "late hits" are actually intended to simply be an "I'm in charge" kind of act and by everyday dictionary definition are acts of poor sportsmanship.  I believe from simple in game evidence over the years that we know that the crap from an out of control player tends to dramatically tone down as soon as he has 1 USC.  How hard would it be for NFHS to put that in our toolbox?
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2936
  • FAN REACTION: +115/-27
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2019, 07:24:28 AM »
Wait, you're not saying that you get fined if a player DQs himself, are you?

Of course not.  The progressive system of fines/suspensions applies to the player, although the school is ultimately responsible for making sure payment is made.

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 542
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-30
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2019, 08:47:50 AM »
I propose this not from an "urgency to DQ players" standpoint, but from a "give us another tool to held get players under control" standpoint.  We've all had games with that one player who keeps doing a lot of little stuff after the play and picks up a couple of DBPFs, but no one act that rises to the level of a flagrant act.  ...
I think we have the tool we need already.  I had that player on the losing side of a running clock game this year.  The first time I talked to the player.  The second time I talked with the coach.  The third time I told him that I would continue to penalize his team 15 yards until he stopped what he was doing or his coach took him out of the game.  At which point the player walked to the sideline and said, " Coach, take me out."  Problem solved, and I didn't have to send a DQ report to the state.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2019, 09:49:21 AM »
I

While I understand Al's "one size doesn't fit all" approach to the rules, I have a hard time completely ignoring the very definition in 2-16-2 that specifically states that an unsportsmanlike foul is a noncontact act.  I'm sure Al will write another three paragraphs telling me that it's not necessary and I can justify it because, after all, "one size doesn't fit all".  He may be comfortable using a tortured interpretation to potentially DQ a player; I prefer to have explicit rules justification before I invoke the nuclear option for a non-flagrant act.

And with that, I'm done feeding the troll

No torture "justification" necessary.  If you need a specific authorization and permission to do EVERYTHING you're supposed to, you can continue petitioning for another unnecessary pre approval. 

Or, you could thoroughly look through the "toolbox" you've been provided with to better understand the tools that have long been readily available, for EXACTLY the job you're seeking to do and consider their intended multiple application capability works on YOUR behalf.

As for differing perspectives on " a State level" that needs to be addressed within THAT State. If you're seeking a rules code that tries to specifically address every potential variable, individually, you might consider focusing on a different level.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2019, 12:04:59 AM »
Why are you so intent on limiting your options and authority?   NFHS 2-16-c "FLAGRANT (Foul): a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury, and/or involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct."  All those determinations are made EXCLUSIVELY by the calling game official.  There's no debate, no argument, no discussion necessary (unless YOU choose to seek assistance).  It's YOUR decision, YOUR assessment, YOUR call.

Except neither hit is flagrant by itself so it's not enough to warrant an ejection under the current rules. But if the first one could be considered a UNS (which is CLEARLY not allowed under any interpretation of the current rules) it almost definitely prevents the second one from happening. That is very evident by what we've seen at the NCAA level since the rule was changed. If either hit is flagrant it doesn't matter if it's the first one or second one they are gone.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2019, 12:10:25 AM »
No torture "justification" necessary.  If you need a specific authorization and permission to do EVERYTHING you're supposed to, you can continue petitioning for another unnecessary pre approval. 

Or, you could thoroughly look through the "toolbox" you've been provided with to better understand the tools that have long been readily available, for EXACTLY the job you're seeking to do and consider their intended multiple application capability works on YOUR behalf.

As for differing perspectives on " a State level" that needs to be addressed within THAT State. If you're seeking a rules code that tries to specifically address every potential variable, individually, you might consider focusing on a different level.


This tool box you keep mentioning clearly and concisely states it's a PF if there is CONTACT and a UNS if there is none. We don't have any wiggle room to make a contact foul a UNS or a non-contact foul a PF. The only way the pile picker could get a UNS is if they do something before or after the hit as a separate act (I.e. calling him a MF before he's hit or standing over him taunting after the play. But both of those are non-contact examples.

Offline Stinterp

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-16
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2019, 11:06:42 AM »
+1

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2019, 05:36:28 PM »
This tool box you keep mentioning clearly and concisely states it's a PF if there is CONTACT and a UNS if there is none. We don't have any wiggle room to make a contact foul a UNS or a non-contact foul a PF. The only way the pile picker could get a UNS is if they do something before or after the hit as a separate act (I.e. calling him a MF before he's hit or standing over him taunting after the play. But both of those are non-contact examples.

Appreciate your efforts to keep every last speck of fly dropping off the pepper factory floor, but "the beat goes on" regardless.
YOU have all the "wiggle room" you need, to do what YOU decide needs to be done, IF YOU have the will to wiggle.

Offline SCline

  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2019, 11:39:11 PM »
Using soccer as comparison, all we essentially have for contact fouls is a red card. NFHS, please give us a yellow card option for contact fouls.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2019, 12:08:51 PM »
Using soccer as comparison, all we essentially have for contact fouls is a red card. NFHS, please give us a yellow card option for contact fouls.

I give up, "there are none so blind, as those [who won't EVEN bother to look, much less] refuse to see."

The situations you describe have been handled by the current rules [and game officials applying their common sense and judgment] for DECADES, what has changed making these judgments suddenly inoperable?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2019, 12:20:05 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3848
  • FAN REACTION: +99/-283
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2019, 01:17:02 PM »
I give up, "there are none so blind, as those [who won't EVEN bother to look, much less] refuse to see."

The situations you describe have been handled by the current rules [and game officials applying their common sense and judgment] for DECADES, what has changed making these judgments suddenly inoperable?

A good self description Al.  Where in the rules, the case plays, or any additional NFHS guidance is there even a hint that we can call a USC on a DB contact foul?  That's all that we are asking for.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 721
  • FAN REACTION: +633/-113
  • See it, Think about it, Pass on it if possible!
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2019, 02:13:08 PM »
Where in the rules, the case plays, or any additional NFHS guidance is there even a hint that we can call a USC on a DB contact foul?  That's all that we are asking for.

While I completely agree with the concept, It is not likely the NFHS would ever allow any type of contact foul to be upgraded to a UNS foul as you suggest.  ^no
That being said, another angle might simply be to adopt a new word, term, or level for a personal foul that is, for example;
A notch above the run of the mill UNR, but, does not quite reach the level of flagrant.

For the purpose of this lets just call it a Level 2 UNR Foul.
We would simply need two things:
1) A 2-16-2 definition of a Level 2 UNR Foul This could be a list that begins with: Examples are, but not limited to:
2) A 9-4 rule that specifies no player shall commit a Level 2 UNR.
3) The PENALTY section of 9-4 gets the following addition: A second Level 2 UNR shall be deemed flagrant and the offending player shall be disqualified.

The end result is when the player receives his/her first Level 2 UNR they are:
1) Placed on Double Secret Probation AND The Watch List
2) An announcement is made: "For the purpose of disqualification, this is player #66's First Level 2 UNR Foul"
3) THE HEAD COACH IS ADVISED OF THE SITUATION
4) The player is advised of his/her situation

This is just an outside of the box suggestion that might just result in a very simple win win and everyone lives happily ever after!  ^good
« Last Edit: December 20, 2019, 02:23:02 PM by KWH »
SEE everything that you CALL, but; Don't CALL everything you SEE!
Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a great ball game!

Respectfully Submitted;
Some guy on a message forum

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2019, 08:42:00 PM »
While I completely agree with the concept, It is not likely the NFHS would ever allow any type of contact foul to be upgraded to a  USC

Just becasue you asked, I'm not suggesting any type of a formal upgrade.  The kind of actions I'm considering this discussion to be related to, is a situation where a "normal" contact foul escalates into something more serious.  Where either the initial action escalates on it's own, or develops into some retaliatory or added inappropriate behavior, that may, or may not involve EITHER another inappropriate personal contact OR some inappropriate non-contact behavior, which in and of itself in either situation would constitute an "unsportsmanlike" act.

The result may very likely constitute both a "contact foul" AND an "unsportsmanship behavior, as determined SOLELY by the covering official.  YOU are fully within your rights under the current rules to determine whether WHAT YOU ARE OBSERVING violates either, or both rules and which consequence YOU determine is appropriate. 

Depending on what YOU observed, YOU are currently empowered to judge, and determine which foul best fits what YOU have observed.  A contact foul, depending on how "deliberate, malicious or intentional" YOU may determine it may be, can be both a contact foul &/or an unsportsmanlike act.  That decision is up to YOU.

Example: B inappropriately shoves A, A retaliates and shoves B, but also questions, or disparages, B's racial or ethnic background.  YOU have to determine if B, or both B & A each deserve offsetting fouls for their shoving and whether or not A's response to B is an unsportsmanlike foul, which in YOUR judgment & determination rises to the level of disqualification, or not.

Current NFHS rules provide YOU with the authority to rule as YOU see best fits the circumstances YOU have observed.



Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 721
  • FAN REACTION: +633/-113
  • See it, Think about it, Pass on it if possible!
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2019, 06:15:37 PM »
Just becasue you asked, I'm not suggesting any type of a formal upgrade.  The kind of actions I'm considering this discussion to be related to, is a situation where a "normal" contact foul escalates into something more serious.  Where either the initial action escalates on it's own, or develops into some retaliatory or added inappropriate behavior, that may, or may not involve EITHER another inappropriate personal contact OR some inappropriate non-contact behavior, which in and of itself in either situation would constitute an "unsportsmanlike" act.

The result may very likely constitute both a "contact foul" AND an "unsportsmanship behavior, as determined SOLELY by the covering official.  YOU are fully within your rights under the current rules to determine whether WHAT YOU ARE OBSERVING violates either, or both rules and which consequence YOU determine is appropriate. 

Depending on what YOU observed, YOU are currently empowered to judge, and determine which foul best fits what YOU have observed.  A contact foul, depending on how "deliberate, malicious or intentional" YOU may determine it may be, can be both a contact foul &/or an unsportsmanlike act.  That decision is up to YOU.

Example: B inappropriately shoves A, A retaliates and shoves B, but also questions, or disparages, B's racial or ethnic background.  YOU have to determine if B, or both B & A each deserve offsetting fouls for their shoving and whether or not A's response to B is an unsportsmanlike foul, which in YOUR judgment & determination rises to the level of disqualification, or not.

Current NFHS rules provide YOU with the authority to rule as YOU see best fits the circumstances YOU have observed.

ALF -
Are YOU insinuating YOU just discovered something no one has ever discovered before?
In your example play, you have You have Two Dead ball fouls on A (one PF and one UNS) and one dead ball PF on B! Simple situation using Rule 10-2-5. The two PFs offset and the UNS is enforced.
Unfortunately YOUr example play is NOT what anyone is discussing in the entire thread.
Many on this thread would like to be able to upgrade a single PF to an UNS, and, that is not supported by NFHS Code.
Your Example play that YOU are so proud of is not what anyone is discussing. (YOU have explained your play 3 times, we don't need it again since it is off topic.

OK - Go!  Now I am giving YOU and green light so YOU can give me a four paragraph report on why I am wrong...

« Last Edit: December 30, 2019, 01:48:49 PM by KWH »
SEE everything that you CALL, but; Don't CALL everything you SEE!
Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a great ball game!

Respectfully Submitted;
Some guy on a message forum

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2019, 06:49:11 PM »
If I thought 4 paragraphs would help you understand YOUR responsibility & authority better, I'd continue trying but that seems futile.  This is not a question of discovering anything new, rather recognizing what is, and has been, available to you (when, and what, YOU judge is APPROPRIATE for the specific circumstance YOU are observing) for DECADES.

Hopefully, extended specific permission will not replace reliance on a (competent) covering official's judgment as to which existing rule, and or possible violation thereof, is necessary to ajuacate whater unique situation that official is observing, rather than being unnecessarily constrained from taking appropriate action.  The authority is, and has long been available, to deal appropriately with what is being observed, if and when the willingness to apply it is also present, for EXACTLY the rare circumstances you are concerned about happening - You have the gun, it's the willingness to rely on YOUR OWN judgment as to when to pull the trigger that's missing.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2019, 06:57:23 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2019, 06:31:15 AM »
If I thought 4 paragraphs would help you understand YOUR responsibility & authority better, I'd continue trying but that seems futile.  This is not a question of discovering anything new, rather recognizing what is, and has been, available to you (when, and what, YOU judge is APPROPRIATE for the specific circumstance YOU are observing) for DECADES.

Hopefully, extended specific permission will not replace reliance on a (competent) covering official's judgment as to which existing rule, and or possible violation thereof, is necessary to ajuacate whater unique situation that official is observing, rather than being unnecessarily constrained from taking appropriate action.  The authority is, and has long been available, to deal appropriately with what is being observed, if and when the willingness to apply it is also present, for EXACTLY the rare circumstances you are concerned about happening - You have the gun, it's the willingness to rely on YOUR OWN judgment as to when to pull the trigger that's missing.

Using your previous example of the pushing by both players after the play but removing the separate act for "questions, or disparages, B's racial or ethnic background" of his opponent. We all agree your example has 3 potential fouls with 2 being personal fouls and 1 being a UNS. But take away the part in quotes, there is nothing there the official can determine to be UNS under NFHS rules. They are both contact fouls so have to be personal fouls. Many of us also officiate other games under NCAA rules and that same act can be deemed UNS under their rule code. If try to make a similar act a UNS I have no rule support. I actually did that once and nobody said anything, but I was making up a rule to do it. Not the best thing for an official to do.

KWH...the issue with your example is if it combines this 2nd level UNR with a traditional UNS for an ejection as well. I think that's an over complicated solution compared to just making non-play related physical acts a UNS. It's worked pretty well in NCAA and not really hard to apply and enforce. If the NFHS rules committee ever does consider this, the simpler solution would just be to define certain physical acts to be UNS.

Offline zebrastripes

  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2019, 08:46:12 AM »
Given how black-and-white Al normally is about things, it's surprising to see him making this case in this thread.

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2019, 10:48:38 AM »
If I thought 4 paragraphs would help you understand YOUR responsibility & authority better, I'd continue trying but that seems futile.  This is not a question of discovering anything new, rather recognizing what is, and has been, available to you (when, and what, YOU judge is APPROPRIATE for the specific circumstance YOU are observing) for DECADES.

Hopefully, extended specific permission will not replace reliance on a (competent) covering official's judgment as to which existing rule, and or possible violation thereof, is necessary to ajuacate whater unique situation that official is observing, rather than being unnecessarily constrained from taking appropriate action.  The authority is, and has long been available, to deal appropriately with what is being observed, if and when the willingness to apply it is also present, for EXACTLY the rare circumstances you are concerned about happening - You have the gun, it's the willingness to rely on YOUR OWN judgment as to when to pull the trigger that's missing.

Hey Al, honest question about how you'd handle this situation...

First, imagine there is nothing extra to this scenario. No verbiage, no overt taunting, no hand gestures, etc.

Now imagine this scenario:
1st QTR - DB. A85 pushes an opponent off the pile, but it's clearly not a flagrant act.
2nd QTR - A85 does the same thing.
3rd QTR - A85 does the same thing.
4th QTR - A85 does the same thing.

Using your toolbox, what type of foul does each of the above receive, and which one results in the DQ?

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2019, 12:00:12 PM »
Addressing hypothetical questions is always dangerous, but since you asked.  For each question my response would depend on what I observed, and the tone of that particular game and the specific situation I was observing.

1st qtr: Most likely, I'd use my "little voice", explaining quietly such action could be considered 'excessive" and should not be repeated.

2nd qtr: Again, depending on what I observed, I might flag as a PF, or possibly again privately advise the player such excessive contact is unnecessary.  Depending on the specific circumstance, I might privately advise a coach the player was losing control and some special coaching assistance might be in order.

3rd qtr: as always, depending on what I observed, an immediate flag would likely fly, and if I felt it worthwhile, I might again look to a coach about the players demeanor. Depending on the accumulated behavior, the accumulated response thus far of the player and the reaction (if any) by the coach. I may very likely end that players participation right there.

4th qtr: If by some chance the player was still available to commit a 4th violation, after accepting part of the responsibility for his still playing, I'd flag & DQ him for violating NFHS 2-16-c ("...involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct").

Part of our authority is based on, and derived, from EVERYBODY understanding that we have access to "A big stick, we keep out of sight in a closet".  Although, hopefully, we rarely, if ever, find it necessary to use it, EVERYBODY needs to understand it's there for use at OUR discretion-exclusively.

How far YOU wish to tolerate (allow, ignore, permit) bad behavior is up to YOU.  The rules are in place to guide you, but the judgments are YOURS.  When in doubt you may want to seek guidance from your Referee, NFHS 1-1-6 & 1-1-9 should provide all the authorization you may require.


Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2019, 12:27:15 PM »
Addressing hypothetical questions is always dangerous, but since you asked.  For each question my response would depend on what I observed, and the tone of that particular game and the specific situation I was observing.

1st qtr: Most likely, I'd use my "little voice", explaining quietly such action could be considered 'excessive" and should not be repeated.

2nd qtr: Again, depending on what I observed, I might flag as a PF, or possibly again privately advise the player such excessive contact is unnecessary.  Depending on the specific circumstance, I might privately advise a coach the player was losing control and some special coaching assistance might be in order.

3rd qtr: as always, depending on what I observed, an immediate flag would likely fly, and if I felt it worthwhile, I might again look to a coach about the players demeanor. Depending on the accumulated behavior, the accumulated response thus far of the player and the reaction (if any) by the coach. I may very likely end that players participation right there.

4th qtr: If by some chance the player was still available to commit a 4th violation, after accepting part of the responsibility for his still playing, I'd flag & DQ him for violating NFHS 2-16-c ("...involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct").

Part of our authority is based on, and derived, from EVERYBODY understanding that we have access to "A big stick, we keep out of sight in a closet".  Although, hopefully, we rarely, if ever, find it necessary to use it, EVERYBODY needs to understand it's there for use at OUR discretion-exclusively.

How far YOU wish to tolerate (allow, ignore, permit) bad behavior is up to YOU.  The rules are in place to guide you, but the judgments are YOURS.  When in doubt you may want to seek guidance from your Referee, NFHS 1-1-6 & 1-1-9 should provide all the authorization you may require.

I sincerely appreciate the reply. I respect you for sticking to your guns.

Keep in mind I don't agree with any of it, and feel invoking 2-16-c in this case is not only against the intent of the rules, but it's also an extremely tough sell. If the first two fouls were in the gray area of either verbal warning or throwing the flag for PF, it's very difficult to see how a third such action, which draws potentially the very first flag for PF, rises to the intended gravity and verbiage of a flagrant foul. If you enforced in such a manner, even if it were the second such flag for pushing off the pile, I'd expect you may as well have your backup flag ready for the inevitable UNS you're going to throw on the head coach.

If, however, the rules were changed so that pushing were permitted UNS categorization, and two UNS fouls carry auto-DQ, then it's not our discretion, it's better supported by the rules, and the coach already knows little Johnny has the rest of the night off. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks again.

Offline Derek Teigen

  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-1
  • Committed to the game; safety and sportsmanship
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2019, 12:51:56 PM »
Hey Al, honest question about how you'd handle this situation...

First, imagine there is nothing extra to this scenario. No verbiage, no overt taunting, no hand gestures, etc.

Now imagine this scenario:
1st QTR - DB. A85 pushes an opponent off the pile, but it's clearly not a flagrant act.
2nd QTR - A85 does the same thing.
3rd QTR - A85 does the same thing.
4th QTR - A85 does the same thing.

Using your toolbox, what type of foul does each of the above receive, and which one results in the DQ?

A couple of comments are is it possible that the defensive player laying on top of the pile is doing so in order to try and punish the offensive player below him.  A85 is just trying to give his teammate 'breathing space'.  Maybe 'time' is an issue in some of these where "B" is trying a delaying tactic? 

As a second year official I think I would talk to my white hat the first time to see how he would like me to handle this.  But I would think unnecessary roughness could be applied here and I am sure team B would prefer that in the above scenario because if A85's coach is silly enough to allow his player 4 unnecessary roughness penalties I think B might prefer that?

But it is pretty clear there is so much judgement involved but I think the 'yellow card' example that was brought forth could be equivalent to the 'warning talk' after the first occurrence.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: While we're talking about rule changes...
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2019, 01:37:45 PM »
Derek, when you are not sure about ANYTHING, a good idea is to check with your Referee (as subtly as circumstances allow) to verify your conclusion.  DQing should be a rarity, and what is accepted as normal in one area may not apply elsewhere, BUT specifically identifying and explaining every possible variable is not always the best answer.

However, NFHS rules have historically, often relied on a broader level of game officials judgment of WHAT THEY ARE OBSERVING than rigid specific definition applied to countless variations.

As you gain experience you may decide to spread your activities over different levels, and will discover there are significant differences in maturity, basic understanding, both physical and mental capabilities and capacities of players, coaches and the unique objectives of the each level of the game.

As with many things, the finer points of the game differ at each advanced level of the game, and modifications applied successfully to address issues at upper levels may OR MAY NOT fit as well at a different level.  An easy example might be the requirements for a "CATCH" (a basic part of ALL levels) which is handled considerably different at each progressive level. Those differences are not a question of "better" as much as they are about being different, to better fit each progressive skill and maturity level.

Very often expecting (up to) teenagers to adapt and behave like adults, proves as misguided as allowing adults to behave like teenagers.  Although it might well be easier, one size rarely fits EVERYBODY well.