RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: VALJ on December 12, 2019, 10:16:44 AM
-
My one "wish list" item every year that doesn't involve BBW is for the additional of a "contact USC" for when Bubba gets a little bit frisky after the play is blown dead but the contact isn't worthy of a flagrant foul. If we're able to treat stupid stuff like that that instigates some garbage as a USC, that gives us another tool to try and get rid of the chippy crap that happens when players get to the point that they'd rather demonstrate their testosterone than play football.
As much as I hate saying "that's how the NCAA does it", it really seems like having that tool in their pocket gets helps with player control. "Coach, number 58 has just earned an unsportsmanlike foul for starting that mess after the play was over. If it happens again, he'll disqualify himself from the game."
I know that we have the option to immediately DQ for something we deem flagrant, but we all know that a lot of that junk that happens doesn't rise to that level. And when 58 on A started something with 27 on B, and B gets crabby and wants a piece back, then we end up with more fouls...
-
I hear you, VALJ, and discussions have occurred around 2 PFs and you're gone. The concern is PF's come in many shapes and sizes and could be challenging for some officials to record. I tell our guys, when deciding between a PF and USC, to ask themselves if the contact alone would have been a foul ? If not, it is a USC, and Bubba is on double-secret probation P_S. Example : 2 players bumping each other while getting up is probably just a warning and a handshake . I've asked several times, without a problem : "Both of you guys are important to your teams and I want to keep you both in the game. Please shake hands and agree to keep it clean!" IF the bumping turns into a discussion of the sexual desires of each other's mother, ^flag ^flag USC on both ( one flag will do). They are now both on the "WATCH LIST"
tiphat:
-
I can imagine how the announcement for that would sound. [mic on] After the play was over, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Offense, Number 58. He was giving him the business. 15 yard penalty from the succeeding spot, 3rd down. This is #58 1st unsportsmanlike conduct foul of the game. [mic off]
-
I can imagine how the announcement for that would sound. [mic on] After the play was over, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Offense, Number 58. He was giving him the business. 15 yard penalty from the succeeding spot, 3rd down. This is #58 1st unsportsmanlike conduct foul of the game. [mic off]
;D I would replace "giving him the business..." with : "Being very naughty....." . The former sounds like referring to a barroom fight in some skid-row dive. Big ole' Bubba has probably told that he was naughty many times, both at home and at school. ;D
-
I hear you, VALJ, and discussions have occurred around 2 PFs and you're gone. The concern is PF's come in many shapes and sizes and could be challenging for some officials to record.
That's exactly why I'd like to see having the option to call a USC instead of a PF, though. In the first querter, Slick is a half second late into the pile and it's "continuing action" from the play - naughty - garden variety PF. Two plays later, Speedy is 3 or 4 seconds late into the pile and everyone else has eased up - that's VERY naughty - call a USC instead of a PF, and Speedy knows he's got to mind his manners the rest of the night or sit the rest of the night, and probably the next week, too.
NCAA officials have that tool in their pockets. I'd like to have it, too.
NCAA RULE 9 – CONDUCT OF PLAYERS AND OTHERS SUBJECT TO THE RULES
SECTION 2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Fouls
ARTICLE 1. Unsportsmanlike Acts
There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes, coaches, authorised attendants or any other persons subject to the rules, before the game, during the game or between periods. Infractions for these acts by players are administered as either live-ball or dead-ball fouls depending on when they occur. (A.R. 9-2-1:I-X)
a. Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include:
10. Dead-ball contact fouls such as pushing, shoving, striking, etc. that occur clearly after the ball is dead and that are not part of the game action. (A.R. 9-2-1:X)
That approved ruling referenced is:
After the ball carrier is tackled, A55 and B73 engage in a scuffle such that officials have to separate them and throw flags. Both A55 and B73 are charged with dead-ball personal fouls. RULING: Offsetting
dead-ball fouls. Each player is also charged with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul which counts toward the two such fouls leading to automatic disqualification. The referee announces either the first or second
unsportsmanlike conduct foul for A55 and B73.
-
NCAA officials have that tool in their pockets. I'd like to have it, too.
Check your pocket, you may be confusing a difference without a distinction,(or is it a distinction without a difference).
Bad behaviors can include inappropriate contact, or not. Like "beauty", the judgment is in the eye of the beholder. Call it as YOU see it.
-
Check your pocket, you may be confusing a difference without a distinction,(or is it a distinction without a difference).
Bad behaviors can include inappropriate contact, or not. Like "beauty", the judgment is in the eye of the beholder. Call it as YOU see it.
By definition, if a foul involves physical contact, it's not an unsportsmanlike foul. 2-16-2 states that:
f. Nonplayer or unsportsmanlike-a noncontact foul (other than unintentional contact as specified in 9-4-8) foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress.
If the contact doesn't rise to the flagrant level, which would result in an immediate DQ anyway, we really don't BY RULE have any foul except a PF, or any penalty to enforce except the yardage. And if we DQ a player for two personal fouls, with no explicit rules support, our assigner and our state office can't support us. And shouldn't, in the absence of rules coverage allowing it. I'd like that explicit support.
-
By definition, if a foul involves physical contact, it's not an unsportsmanlike foul. 2-16-2 states that:
If the contact doesn't rise to the flagrant level, which would result in an immediate DQ anyway, we really don't BY RULE have any foul except a PF, or any penalty to enforce except the yardage. And if we DQ a player for two personal fouls, with no explicit rules support, our assigner and our state office can't support us. And shouldn't, in the absence of rules coverage allowing it. I'd like that explicit support.
Completely agree! I really like the NCAA rule in this case. I had a HS game several years ago where a defender was getting up off the ground and he did it by putting his fist on the groin of an opponent and pushing up. He didn't punch. He didn't hurt the guy. It was just a stupid, unsportsmanlike act. I ignored the HS rule and reported it to the R as UNS (explained exactly what happened and he was OK with it). Guess who was a perfect angel helping players up the rest of the game? It worked perfectly. A personal foul would have still had the same 15-yard penalty, but UNS was a better description of what happened and the penalty also fit better.
-
Any DB foul that occurs well after a play is over is effectively an act of bad sportsmanship. How hard would it be for NFHS to craft the wording to make it an UNS foul?
-
By definition, if a foul involves physical contact, it's not an unsportsmanlike foul. 2-16-2 states that:
If the contact doesn't rise to the flagrant level, which would result in an immediate DQ anyway, we really don't BY RULE have any foul except a PF, or any penalty to enforce except the yardage. And if we DQ a player for two personal fouls, with no explicit rules support, our assigner and our state office can't support us. And shouldn't, in the absence of rules coverage allowing it. I'd like that explicit support.
Forgive me, but I believe YOU are placing unnecessary and excessive limits on YOUR judgment, and that YOU have the exclusive authority and support to judge what you are witnessing, which very often may involve a combination of an inappropriate, or illegal contact (9-3-3) AND Non-contact Unsportsmanlike (9-5-1) behavior. Deciding which transgression will take precedent is YOUR responsibility.
Example: A play ends with a forceful (but legal) tackle by B:
a. A takes umbrage and shoves B. YOU will decide if the retaliation by A merits a flag (DB PF), or perhaps an admonition.
or
b. A takes(the same) umbrage and shoves B, but adds a verbal invective ( that may be vulgar, threatening, familial or racially insensitive). YOUR (JUDGMENT) & decision now involves BOTH the possible 9-3-3 DBPF and the 9-5-1 USC outburst. (A multiple foul option should NOT APPLY (2-16-e).
YOUR judgment & decision (on what you've observed) expands to consider BOTH the physical contact & the USC behavior, and YOU will decide whether the contact OR the UNS behavior merit consequence. You currently have all the necessary "explicit support" to decide and render YOUR judgment of which violation takes precedent and which appropriate consequences should apply.
-
YOUR judgment & decision (on what you've observed) expands to consider BOTH the physical contact & the USC behavior, and YOU will decide whether the contact OR the UNS behavior merit consequence. You currently have all the necessary "explicit support" to decide and render YOUR judgment of which violation takes precedent and which appropriate consequences should apply.
I've got to agree with Al here. Simply because a late act includes some physical component does not automatically exclude it from being flagged as a USC. If it includes any of the components of a USC such as verbal taunting, standing over the player, gesturing in some form, etc. I see no reason why we can't flag it as a USC. I still would like to see the rules modified to clearly support a USC being called when a late, inappropriate, physical act takes place and in our judgment it crosses the USC line. We can call a USC for spiking the ball or prancing into the EZ with a finger in the air, but we can't currently call a USC for a very late hit that is intended solely to intimidate and says mine's bigger than yours?
Think about that, it's a pretty absurd situation in my opinion. The threat of pending ejection for a 2nd USC is a powerful antidote for dummies.
-
Currently Viewing: 2-16
ART. 2 . . . Types of fouls are:
f. Nonplayer or unsportsmanlike-a noncontact foul (other than unintentional contact as specified in 9-4-8) foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress.
BY DEFINITION, if there's contact involved, it's not an unsportsmanlike act. If Bubba's putting the badmouth to an opponent, which is by defintion unsportsmanlike, I'll call that instead of the PF. I'm asking for EXPLICIT rules coverage for this act, so that even in situation where there's no verbal component, I've got justification BY RULE to treat as an unsportsmanlike act.
I still would like to see the rules modified to clearly support a USC being called when a late, inappropriate, physical act takes place and in our judgment it crosses the USC line.
NVFOA - that's all I'm asking for. We've all seen those inappropriate physical acts taking place that we know are committed out of poor sportsmanship. Give me clear rules support for when there's no taunting, or verbal component, or anything like that, so we can handle it from a sportsmanship angle.
-
We can call a USC for spiking the ball or prancing into the EZ with a finger in the air, but we can't currently call a USC for a very late hit that is intended solely to intimidate and says mine's bigger than yours? Think about that, it's a pretty absurd situation in my opinion. The threat of pending ejection for a 2nd USC is a powerful antidote for dummies.
Current rules provide all the authority and support YOU need to do what YOU believe is appropriate. The Penalty Summary, for NFHS 9-4 provides the following guidance, "ARTS. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or 8 - Disqualification also if any fouls under these articles are judged by the game official to be flagrant - (S47) .
YOU have the option, and the authority and support, to determine whether, or not, the action (ALONE) YOU are observing rises to the level of earning DISQUALIFICATION, or not. If YOU decide "not" there's no prohibition about advising the violator that any repeated behavior will result in serious consequences. The current rules provide YOU with a range of options, to deal with the specific situation you are observing, and the authority and support to decide which consequence is appropriate.
The necessary authority (and flexibility) is present, all that's needed is the judgment and resolve of the calling officials to apply it, as determined by THAT SPECIFIC activity/action being observed.
-
Give me clear rules support for when there's no taunting, or verbal component, or anything like that, so we can handle it from a sportsmanship angle.
You already do: 9-4-Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 – Disqualification also if any fouls under these articles are judged by the game official to be flagrant – (S47).
And you don't have to wait to count to two.
-
If a player does a pile picker after the play is over our only option is a personal foul. If he does it again it's just another personal foul. It's not a flagrant hit so you would never consider it as an ejection, but if the first one could considered a UNS he would not likely do the second. He would also be very careful to run his mouth or do anything possibly determined to be UNS. Having non-football acts involving contact be UNS fouls is very effective. If they do stand over the player after knocking them down you could have a UNS, but that's not what we are talking about here.
-
If a player does a pile picker after the play is over our only option is a personal foul. If he does it again it's just another personal foul. It's not a flagrant hit so you would never consider it as an ejection, but if the first one could considered a UNS he would not likely do the second. He would also be very careful to run his mouth or do anything possibly determined to be UNS. Having non-football acts involving contact be UNS fouls is very effective. If they do stand over the player after knocking them down you could have a UNS, but that's not what we are talking about here.
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.
-
I don't understand the urgency to DQ players. If the coach is willing to keep taking 15 yard loses for UNS or PF's I am willing to oblige.
-
You already do: 9-4-Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 – Disqualification also if any fouls under these articles are judged by the game official to be flagrant – (S47).
And you don't have to wait to count to two.
I believe that you're missing the real point here. The intent is not to eject for a single late hit but to have the clear option of calling any intentional late contact UNS which if you look at the broader definition of the word it actually is. That establishes the threat that if you do it again you will be ejected with additional impact later. It's been pretty obvious in my years that players with 1 UNS "suddenly" seem to play under far better control than the player who gets a DB-PF.
One would think that the NFHS, constantly stressing sportsmanship in all of their sports rules, would see the clear benefit in making such a change.
-
Considering the "broader definition" (ambiguity) of the current NFHS language, and the inherent flexibility it provides to allow constructive, appropriate "protective officiating" advice to the younger Interscholastic level player, YOU already have ample opportunity to insure that the fouling player is well aware of the seriousness of potential consequences associated with ANY repetitive behavior, if YOU judge the current incident to fall short of that conclusion.
The gun is always loaded, it's YOUR judgment, of the specific situation YOU'VE observed, that provides YOU with the necessary authority to determine if, when and how hard to pull the trigger.
-
Considering the "broader definition" (ambiguity) of the current NFHS language, and the inherent flexibility it provides to allow constructive, appropriate "protective officiating" advice to the younger Interscholastic level player, YOU already have ample opportunity to insure that the fouling player is well aware of the seriousness of potential consequences associated with ANY repetitive behavior, if YOU judge the current incident to fall short of that conclusion.
Not if our supervisor does not agree that there is explicit language in the rules allowing a late hit to be treated as a USC. We need clear language giving us the authority to rule clearly late or way out of the play hits (not just a little late at the point of attack) a USC. Not intended to immediately eject a player but to put him on "probation".
-
Not if our supervisor does not agree that there is explicit language in the rules allowing a late hit to be treated as a USC. We need clear language giving us the authority to rule clearly late or way out of the play hits (not just a little late at the point of attack) a USC. Not intended to immediately eject a player but to put him on "probation".
Sounds like your issue, and that of your Supervisor, may be more about "Want" than "Needs", and a reluctance to accept Change you've both been subjected to. NFHS rules provide you with the necessary authority to properly judge and rule on what you observe, whether, or not you accept that responsibility is up to YOU.
-
Sounds like your issue, and that of your Supervisor, may be more about "Want" than "Needs", and a reluctance to accept Change you've both been subjected to. NFHS rules provide you with the necessary authority to properly judge and rule on what you observe, whether, or not you accept that responsibility is up to YOU.
So both sections in Rule 9 that describe USC fouls preface the term with "noncontact". Can you point to me a single instance in the rule book or the case book where we are clearly authorized to call an obviously unsportsmanlike physical act that includes contact against an opponent a USC foul?
-
There seems to be a lot more language (specifics, details, requirements, exceptions) in the NCAA Rule Book than in the NFHS rules, that tends to allow more judgment, more flexibility and more discretion by NFHS officials. Perhaps that's because NFHS games and competition is far more localized (Sections, Communities, States, Regions) than the NCAA National perspective.
Often you won't find the rigid, specific and detailed requirements in the NFHS Rules that exist in the NCAA or NFL versions. Perhaps that's a reflection and response to the significant differences in maturity, physical attributes, playing level objectives and capabilities and experience differences between the participant universes at the different levels.
Because of those differences, and the overall objectives of different levels (learning and development versus performance) are uniquely different in many aspects. Contact versus Non-contact seems a somewhat obvious difference, that NFHS relies on the judgment of the individual official somewhat more so than other, more nuanced levels.
A better definition, from the 2018-19 Game Officials Manual (Basic Philosophy &Principles) suggests; "While a thorough knowledge of the rules is important, it is not enough to guarantee the competency of a game official. There are other attributes that are equally important. Game officials must possess a combination of these if they are to fulfill their duties adequately. In addition to complete mastery of the rules, game officials must have a good knowledge of human nature and the ability to control situations as they arise. Football is a game played by physically sound athletes blocking and tackling each other. At times, the emotions of players, coaches and crowds run high and game officials must control themselves in order to provide necessary leadership."
Doing so effectively at the NFHS level is aided by the flexibility provided to apply the intent of the rules to the specific situation being observed, rather than adhering to a rigid, universally intended, specifically detailed interpretation of absolute directives. There are differences, which are intended to support the inherent differences of the playing levels, which will likely NEVER apply to every incident exactly the same, and rely on the judgment of the game officials to produce the appropriate results. .
-
I don't understand the urgency to DQ players. If the coach is willing to keep taking 15 yard loses for UNS or PF's I am willing to oblige.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
Exactly on point! Well said! :thumbup :thumbup
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
+1
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Given how black-and-white Al normally is about things, it's surprising to see him making this case in this thread.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
XXX
PLEASE DELETE ME :puke:
-
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.
Brian -
While I agree with you it works well in NCAA, again, all I am simply saying is it is not likely you will ever see upgrading a PF to a UNS in NFHS in our lifetimes.
That doesn't mean we can't get there!
Yes, I would agree (1) 2nd level UNR combined with (1) UNS would result in (1) DQ! And, I don't think that overcomplicates anything.
Which we can discuss it more over a beer!