RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => General Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on October 04, 2015, 08:13:57 AM
-
More "great" sportsmanship...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/highschool/football/broward/fl-flanagan-miramar-recap-1003-20151002-story.html
Not like it as unexpected that it would be “chippy” based on how the coin toss
-
Your links seem to have a few issues -- the article is behind a paywall and the daily snark link is giving me a page not found error.
Digging around, here's a working link to the coin toss video (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/highschool/sfl-video-miramar-gets-unsportsmanlike-penalty-before-coin-toss-20151003-htmlstory.html)
-
Wow! That R is a perfect example of what gives us a bad name.
-
I can think of about a 1/2 dozen ways to have handled that better. He actually exacerbated it.
I think bringing the two coaches together to see if they are the ones driving it would be the first step. If they support it then advise them that the leash is going to be really short. If they don't then let them handle it immediately.
Sending those captains off and ask the coaches to give you captains that appear to be willing to demonstrate good sportsmanship is about as far as I would be willing to go. I' m not ordering anyone to do anything
-
No being familiar with Federation rules, is it mandatory that the captains shake hands?
-
How does a fellow referee watch this and not be really critical? I have learned a lot about giving guys the benefit of the doubt on this site and I know that oftentimes, video of plays fall short of giving a full picture. But this is all in context and we hear practically everything. This is pretty tough to defend.
-
No being familiar with Federation rules, is it mandatory that the captains shake hands?
In a word, no.
But be prepared for those who will throw out the God clause or the failing to comply with an official's request provision of 9-5-1
3-2-1
-
That whole episode was on the R
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I can't believe you guys!! ( I am assuming you read the article also) The teams had over 500 yards in penalties for the game. Was that on the R also? ! ? ! This was a mess that was gonna happen regardless.
-
I imagine the crew knew going in this was going to be a chippy game and he wanted to at least try to set a tone. However, I think he went a little far. If they do not want to shake hands, send them off the field and get 4 more or have the coaches come to mid field. He should have discussed this in pre game with the coaches.
I have been in a few games that went south despite what the crew or coaches did, but don't push it too far.
-
The coach complained that the officials didn't "control the game." What exactly does that mean? 500 yards in penalties and two coaches ejected. That's not enough?
The R obviously knew what he was going to do at the toss. Who cares if they shake hands. Move on.
-
I can't believe you guys!! ( I am assuming you read the article also) The teams had over 500 yards in penalties for the game. Was that on the R also? ! ? ! This was a mess that was gonna happen regardless.
Mike, I refer only to the opening coin toss. I have no knowledge about the rest of the game.
But really, "That's an order!"
-
Exactly Doc. I used to say shake hands if you want too. I could care less if they do or don't. But making a production out of it was unnecessary.
-
check this out: www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/highschool/sfl-video-miramar-gets-unsportsmanlike-penalty-before-coin-toss-20151003-htmlstory.html
What would you do??? It is worth waiting for. Have not seen anything like it in 41 years.
-
Mike, I refer only to the opening coin toss. I have no knowledge about the rest of the game.
But really, "That's an order!"
Well it is OUR field you know.... ;D
-
They need to suspend some coaches and players for a couple of games.
-
In my 14 years playing and 13 officiating I never thought or heard of opponents not shaking hands until now. I just assumed it's the sportsmanship thing to do regardless of who you are playing. Luckily now I know if the situation were to ever present itself. I agree the R could have handled the coin toss in a better way.
-
I pretty much agree with Mike -- I would have handled this a little differently, but for heaven's sake; how in the heck can you blame the R for what occurred? These kids came to do anything BUT play football. If they don't shake hands, I would have sent the teams back, brought the coaches out and said, OK, what's going on here? I'm probably going to suspend the game unless I get satisfactory answers and take my chances with my assignor and the oversight body. Sounds drastic, but this game is evidence that nothing good comes out of teams who's captains won't shake hands at the start.
-
Luckily now I know if the situation were to ever present itself.
How would you handle?
-
Referee needs a remedial course in game management.
There is NO rule that requires players to shake hands. We've been through this before.
-
9-5-1g. Not that I would have thrown a flag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can tell how I would handle it. I going to go way out on a limb because I have zero rules to back me up. I would send both set of captains back to their sidelines. I would have both head coaches meet me and my umpire at the center of the field and give them a speech that goes something like this.
Gentlemen, I am rather upset that your captains could not show enough maturity and sportsmanship to introduce themselves to each other and shake hands. In all my years of officiating I have never seen anything like this. It is my belief that you as the head coach are responsible for what just happened here. So here is what is going to happen. I am going to bring the captains out again. I don't care if the shake hands. We will do the coin toss and get this game underway. I will be telling my crew that they are to watch these players very closely and to flag anything that looks like a foul. There will be no talk to the players if they start to get out of hand or do not act like gentlemen during the game. We will flag the slightest violation of the rules. Anything that looks like Unsportsmanlike conduct will be flagged. Anything flagrant and the player will be ejected. I don't want to hear a word from your assistants or they will be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. If you have a question or wish to speak with my about something you will need to call a time out. If this game starts to get out of control at any point I will terminate the contest and final a report of with the state association. If you don't like these conditions we can terminate this game right now and all go home. It is up to you.
Hell I would probably get in trouble from my association for doing that but I am not put up with that can BS.
-
NorCal, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. :thumbup
-
I have a number of questions about this situation.
Is shaking hands that important? Important enough to flag? I don't think so, but I can be convinced otherwise. If it is, it should be important enough to flag BOTH teams, since neither team shook hands. And then, if it is important enough to flag once, if they STILL don't shake hands, don't you then HAVE to flag them a second time? A second unsportsmanlike foul carries and ejection. Do you really want to disqualify the player(s) before the game even started for... being rude?
Do you really want to defend that?
Sending those players back and asking for new ones? Why, so the same episode can be replayed?
Making a big deal out of this, to me, just serves to escalate the situation that we are called upon to calm down. Finish the coin toss, send them to their sidelines with a warning that sportsmanship is expected, and their childishness has removed any benefit of the doubt that might have been given previously.
I would address the issue with the coaches, but I would not bring them to midfield to do so. As the R, I would take my U and the wings working that sideline and tell each head coach about the display of immaturity by the players designated as captains. He honestly may not know, as I assume coaches are somewhat busy during this time. I would tell him that we will call the game fairly, as expected, and while I expect his assistance, whether we get it or not, we will maintain control of the contest. As was ALREADY mentioned in our previous discussion, we expect all players and coaches to conduct themselves in a sportsmanlike manner, and anything less than that will be penalized.
At that point I would issue each team a sideline warning, and move on.
-
I can tell how I would handle it. I going to go way out on a limb because I have zero rules to back me up. I would send both set of captains back to their sidelines. I would have both head coaches meet me and my umpire at the center of the field and give them a speech that goes something like this.
Gentlemen, I am rather upset that your captains could not show enough maturity and sportsmanship to introduce themselves to each other and shake hands. In all my years of officiating I have never seen anything like this. It is my belief that you as the head coach are responsible for what just happened here. So here is what is going to happen. I am going to bring the captains out again. I don't care if the shake hands. We will do the coin toss and get this game underway. I will be telling my crew that they are to watch these players very closely and to flag anything that looks like a foul. There will be no talk to the players if they start to get out of hand or do not act like gentlemen during the game. We will flag the slightest violation of the rules. Anything that looks like Unsportsmanlike conduct will be flagged. Anything flagrant and the player will be ejected. I don't want to hear a word from your assistants or they will be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. If you have a question or wish to speak with my about something you will need to call a time out. If this game starts to get out of control at any point I will terminate the contest and final a report of with the state association. If you don't like these conditions we can terminate this game right now and all go home. It is up to you.
HECK I would probably get in trouble from my association for doing that but I am not put up with that can HORSE HOCKEY.
If you get in trouble with your Association, NorCal, let me know where you stop to "drown your sorrow" and I'll be pleased to by the first several rounds.
My Giants beat Buffalo yesterday, as much do to the stupidity of the Bills players, who showed as much an absence of self control, as the Giant's positive efforts. Then today's news reports shows coach "Tough guy" applauding their dumb and costly efforts.
We all know this nonsense filters down, both to HS players and (sadly) some coaches. NFHS rules are designed to manage an interscholastic "GAME". Civil behavior and basic manners are supposed to be taught prior to game night, preferably by parents and ultimately supported by coaches and other rational adults.
We all have a choice, either we can turn a blind eye to bad behavior, ignore it and then complain about it, or we can REFUSE TO TOLERATE IT. The only person you NEED to defend your choice to is the face you see in your mirror. Those who choose to nitpick the written language of a set of "GAME" rules to search for some lame excuse to turn away from common sense responsibility need to have a long, hard conversation with that face in their mirror.
Allowing "OUR" game to be taken over by BAD/STUPID behavior is a far greater threat to it's survival than concern over concussions, or other physical injuries.
-
TRUE STORY:
Many years ago, a very good friend was the R in a D-II game where the participants decided they wanted to physically engage each other 30 minutes or so prior to the opening kickoff. One flag was dropped and an UNS foul was issued to everyone on both sidelines, players and coaches alike. The fouls offset and the game was played without further incident - not so much as even one "wolf ticket" was sold. His common sense was backed by the Supervisor AND the conference Commissioner.
Like I said earlier, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
-
Rulesman, if there was "physical engagement" as you write, why would the flag be for Unsportsmanlike Conduct, rather than for Personal Fouls? (Perhaps only a semantic difference, but I always thought that the difference between the two was that PF's had actual contact and USC were fouls other than physical contact (taunting, etc.))
Anyway, in that situation, I agree that dropping the flag (and applying it to ALL- not just one person or one side) is appropriate, because there was actually a foul (physical engagement), and I am not sure refusing to shake hands is a foul. It also works in that instance, because I assume once that happens, the two sides were removed from that area, and the opportunity for idiocy was removed as well.
In the coin flip situation, by insisting on the hand shake once it was refused, he not only did not defuse the issue, but made it worse. And then flagging only one side gave the other side, who were just as guilty, a "get out of jail free" card, as there were no repercussion for the same actions. I don't think you need to flag, but if you do flag, it has to apply to both (as the official did in your example), assessing the foul only to one side because they are the home team makes no sense.
-
Refusing to comply with a game official's request is one example of UNS. I agree the coin toss situation could have been handled differently.
And I believe you would have a hard time selling PF when the action occurs 30 minutes before kickoff, especially if all 150 or so aren't observed making contact with an opponent. No doubt in my play UNS was the correct call. Remember, two UNS fouls provide for an early shower. Two PFs do not. That was the message being sent.
-
Rulesman, if there was "physical engagement" as you write, why would the flag be for Unsportsmanlike Conduct, rather than for Personal Fouls? (Perhaps only a semantic difference, but I always thought that the difference between the two was that PF's had actual contact and USC were fouls other than physical contact (taunting, etc.))
I've been taught that the actual determining factor in PF vs. USC is if the physical engagement occurs in the context of a football play.
For example, assume a defensive player roughly knocks down a runner who is 1 or 2 steps out of bounds. This occurred in the immediate action of a football play. DB PF.
Now, assume that the defensive player roughly contacts the runner after he has come to a stop out of bounds and is returning to the field. This is no longer in the context of a play. USC. Let's the player now that one more and he is gone.
-
Now, assume that the defensive player roughly contacts the runner after he has come to a stop out of bounds and is returning to the field. This is no longer in the context of a play. USC. Let's the player now that one more and he is gone.
Or better yet, deem it a flagrant PF and then you don't have to wait for the 2nd incident.
-
Or better yet, deem it a flagrant PF and then you don't have to wait for the 2nd incident.
This would certainly be an option, depending on how serious the contact is, and just how late the contact occurs. One could also argue that, depending on how late exactly the contact is, it is "in a combative manner unrelated to football" and consider it as an attempt to instigate a fight.
-
Unrelated to my previous post...
If you're going to throw a USC flag on a captain for failing to shake hands as requested - which I think is a stretch, but I'll go with it for a moment - shouldn't you also flag the other captain who didn't attempt to shake hands, either? It's not like the team in white was trying to shake, either.
-
Refusing to comply with a game official's request is one example of UNS. I agree the coin toss situation could have been handled differently.
And I believe you would have a hard time selling PF when the action occurs 30 minutes before kickoff, especially if all 150 or so aren't observed making contact with an opponent. No doubt in my play UNS was the correct call. Remember, two UNS fouls provide for an early shower. Two PFs do not. That was the message being sent.
Thanks Rulesman. I don't have an issue calling it Unsportsmanlike, just wondering on the difference. I agree that the flag was warranted in your example. But as I said earlier, and as VALJ said, if you flag one, you should flag both.
-
Rulesman, if there was "physical engagement" as you write, why would the flag be for Unsportsmanlike Conduct, rather than for Personal Fouls? (Perhaps only a semantic difference, but I always thought that the difference between the two was that PF's had actual contact and USC were fouls other than physical contact (taunting, etc.))
I heard a great comparison tonight that really simplified this to my mind:
A Personal Foul is a foul against a player
An Unsportsmanlike Act is a foul against the game (see Code of Conduct)
Think about that...chew on it for a second.
We are the defenders of this great game...how do you view this situation now?
-
I heard a great comparison tonight that really simplified this to my mind:
A Personal Foul is a foul against a player
An Unsportsmanlike Act is a foul against the game (see Code of Conduct)
Think about that...chew on it for a second.
We are the defenders of this great game...how do you view this situation now?
I get that, and I understand it, and it seems to make sense in the Coin Toss situation, but with that definition in mind, it seems to me it would contradict what pjsaul said earlier in this post:
"I've been taught that the actual determining factor in PF vs. USC is if the physical engagement occurs in the context of a football play.
For example, assume a defensive player roughly knocks down a runner who is 1 or 2 steps out of bounds. This occurred in the immediate action of a football play. DB PF.
Now, assume that the defensive player roughly contacts the runner after he has come to a stop out of bounds and is returning to the field. This is no longer in the context of a play. USC. Let's the player now that one more and he is gone."
Using your logic in that situation- it is still a foul against a player, (the way I look at it), so it would be a Personal Foul instead of Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
The 2nd foul (contact against the runner returning to the field) is still a "foul against a player", is it not? In which case, by your reasoning, it would be a Personal Foul.
-
In my 13 years as an official and 8 years as a player ive never witnessed anything close to this. The R could've (in my opinion should've) let it go after they refused. I would've made a point to say something about what is expected as far as fair play and no cheap stuff. Major question is, where are the Head Coaches for the coin toss? The HCs always are present for the coin toss in Ky. As far as controlling the game, if the HCs are not willing to reel in their players and especially their asst. coaches then there is very little the officials can do other than penalize and eject players and coaches. I believe the HCs should be punished to some extent, bc obviously this behavior isn't started in pre-game warmups. The Referee should never say "shut up" and if he cant control the captains at the coin toss then he needs to get the HCs together with the Umpire and lay down the law.
-
Not all states require the HC to come out for the coin toss. Virginia, for one, doesn't.
-
Let us not forget precedent set for us at higher levels.
Still think it could have been handled better, but its not the first.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11803938/maryland-terrapins-coach-randy-edsall-apologizes-captains-refusing-shake-hands
-
Not all states require the HC to come out for the coin toss. Virginia, for one, doesn't.
NC +1 (Except for the OT- then its one captain and HC)
-
Or the infamous 1987 Miami-Penn State Fiesta Bowl. That was the year Miami wore fatigues and walked out of a dinner held for the two teams.
-
Now, assume that the defensive player roughly contacts the runner after he has come to a stop out of bounds and is returning to the field. This is no longer in the context of a play. USC. Let's the player now that one more and he is gone."
Using your logic in that situation- it is still a foul against a player, (the way I look at it), so it would be a Personal Foul instead of Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
The 2nd foul (contact against the runner returning to the field) is still a "foul against a player", is it not? In which case, by your reasoning, it would be a Personal Foul.
While contact is against a player, if it is outside the context of a play, I would consider it an act against the game. If a player is trying to make a tackle and gets over aggressive and tackle/shove a guy after he is already OOB, then DB PF. But if he comes after him outside of a play, I would have an act that runs counter to the principle our game teaches, which follows the logic that I can have contact against a player which is, by definition, unsporting. (i.e. throwing a punch should never be a DB PF)
-
Th story that started the thread gets a little more confusing...
http://usatodayhss.com/2015/the-curious-case-of-a-florida-football-players-yearlong-suspension
-
Th story that started the thread gets a little more confusing...
http://usatodayhss.com/2015/the-curious-case-of-a-florida-football-players-yearlong-suspension
The plot thickens.
Sounds like a pretty clear cut case of loss of institutional control that has persisted for the better part of a decade (since at least 2007).
-
Some of you guys said you wouldn't bring the coaches to the center of the field like I said in my post and I can understand that but I would be doing it for a couple of specific reasons.
1. I want everyone in the stadium that I had a talk with the coaches.
2. I only want to make the speech one time.
3. I don't want a bunch of assistants around mouthing off that I would end up flagging.
4. I don't want a bunch of the players around. I want the coaches to tell the players what I had to say.
5. Calling the coaches to the center of the field show how serious I am about what I was saying.
6. I want to on my own ground not on the coaches ground.
The way I see this whole thing is its a power struggle and I want to show them that the power in this game is going to reside with me. If they don't like it, we can terminate the game.
I wouldn't throw a flag on anyone. I would use the God rule. I just would make my position very clear.
-
I had one game five or six years back that I was white hatting that was just incredibly ugly - cheap shots galore, several USCs, and the like. One homeschool team and one private school team, both Christian groups. I finally got fed up with about 3 minutes left in the first half, called time, sent both teams to their sidelines, and called out the head coaches. I told the coaches that as far as I was concerned, this wasn't football, and that I was going to tell the kids that they could play football or they could sit the rest of the night. Both agreed, so I called the kids back out - all of them, from both sides, and had them huddle around me.
I told the kids that as far as I was concerned, they could get back to playing football, or they could keep up with what they were doing, and we could all go home at the half, because there wouldn't be anybody left to play. Then the coaches got involved - both of them ripped their own team right in front of the other team for the way they were playing. One of them even asked his team "how can you shake hands with the other team, and call each other brothers in Christ, with the way you're playing?" He unloaded almost an old-school, hellfire and brimstone sermon. The coaches finished, I told the kids it's time to play some football, and we finished the half and the game. Things settled down greatly (though not perfect - they're kids, after all).
After the game, I found out that our commissoner and assigner was there, and he said "the meeting before the half was a bit unusual, but it got the job done."
-
After the game, I found out that our commissoner and assigner was there, and he said "the meeting before the half was a bit unusual, but it got the job done."
You know, there are many times we get so caught up in "proper procedure" and mechanics that we forget to use our common sense & do what needs to be done to control the game.
Kudos to you! tiphat:
-
Mike, you raise a number of very valid points, and I think I understand your reasoning, but I am not sure I agree.
I just think that if you do that, you call attention to it, and run a greater risk of escalation than if you address it individually. From the evidence presented in this case, I have nothing to tell me that the coaches knew anything about the player's behavior during the coin toss.
"Showing everyone in the stadium that you are talking to the coaches" is fine , as far as it goes, I guess, but they don't know what you are talking about, heck, for all they know, you could be discussing what the weather or how to beat the traffic after the game. I think bringing the coaches out to midfield in a show like that, puts them in a bad light, and on the defensive right off the bat. Yes, we want to assert and maintain control, but it's better to work with the coaches, than against them.
I will always assume positive intent on the part of coaches (until I can't). Perhaps I shouldn't, but with everything that is going through their minds right before a game, I can't believe that they are thinking about the players who have been designated as leaders (for whatever reason) acting like spoiled children.
I understand only making the speech one time. In my example you would have to do it twice, but I think it is worth it to reduce the risk of escalation.
We don't know, at this point, if there were a bunch of assistants mouthing off. And if there were, I can then the head coach would also know it, so after I give the sideline warning at the end of our discussion, we will know who will be responsible the next time the flag comes out.
You don't have to have a bunch of players around when doing this, you can walk with the coach to a less crowded area and, again not make the conference so conspicuous. walking side by side, rather than face to face can also help lower the tension. Though if there are players around specifically those that acted childishly, perhaps that is a moment that the coach can assert his leadership. They are his players, he has responsibility for their actions.
Calling the coaches to the center of the field show how serious I am about what I was saying. They should know you are serious about your discussion regardless of where it occurs. I don't make a habit of sideline conversations, so when one occurs, it is already serious.
I want to talk to them on my own ground not on the coaches ground. The entire field is "my ground." But, again, I am not looking to escalate this situation, I am looking to calm it down. If I can talk to the coach where he is comfortable, I'm ok with that.
I guess your last statement is where we disagree the most. I don't think it is- or should be- a struggle for power. The rules ALREADY give me the power, I don't have to show it. I am willing to be a benevolent dictator and share some of that power with the coach with the idea that we will all be much happier that way.
I'd rather we all work toward the same goal rather than be confrontational.
Perhaps I'm being naïve. But I just think there is a different way to make this work.
-
You should take the word "power" out of your officiating vocabulary. We are there to serve the game, conference, and schools.
-
Being confrontational is never going to de-escalate a situation. I really don't think I've seen a fellow official acting that unprofessional either as an official or a spectator. Just let it go and inform the head coaches that we're going to be tighter on jawing/shoving during the game, so the kids better calm down. JMHO
-
Being confrontational is never going to de-escalate a situation. I really don't think I've seen a fellow official acting that unprofessional either as an official or a spectator. Just let it go and inform the head coaches that we're going to be tighter on jawing/shoving during the game, so the kids better calm down. JMHO
This isn't true. Reading the riot act can work. VALJ just gave you an example. I've done it with similar success except with captains in basketball.
Delivering the message that the officials have determined that the normal approach to calling fouls is not having the desired approach and are about to take draconian measures can wake up the players and get them to change their ways. It won't always work but it works enough that it's worth doing.
Also, it's not about a power play between the officials on one side and coaches/players on the other. We don't have to challenge for authority; we already have it. One of the best pieces of advice I've every received on officiating is that we don't have to have the last word, because we have the last say.
-
This isn't true. Reading the riot act can work. VALJ just gave you an example. I've done it with similar success except with captains in basketball.
Delivering the message that the officials have determined that the normal approach to calling fouls is not having the desired approach and are about to take draconian measures can wake up the players and get them to change their ways. It won't always work but it works enough that it's worth doing.
Also, it's not about a power play between the officials on one side and coaches/players on the other. We don't have to challenge for authority; we already have it. One of the best pieces of advice I've every received on officiating is that we don't have to have the last word, because we have the last say.
I think you have to consider the context in which the "confrontation" so to speak, is to occur.
The original post has this "confrontation" or discussion- call it interaction- after the coin toss, but before the game has started. The example VALJ game was after the game had started and there had already been issues.
Other than some childish behavior, the legality of which is open for debate, no fouls have occurred in this situation. I feel that the procedure I outlined would be more effective in defusing what is BECOMING a volatile situation. VALJ's example ALREADY is one, so tactics may need to change somewhat.
As of this moment, in the original discussion, no one has committed a foul, why treat them as if they have?
-
There's no question, fitting mouse traps with atomic warheads will eliminate mice problems, but the collateral damage may be considered somewhat excessive, despite the benefit.
-
I think you have to consider the context in which the "confrontation" so to speak, is to occur.
The original post has this "confrontation" or discussion- call it interaction- after the coin toss, but before the game has started. The example VALJ game was after the game had started and there had already been issues.
Other than some childish behavior, the legality of which is open for debate, no fouls have occurred in this situation. I feel that the procedure I outlined would be more effective in defusing what is BECOMING a volatile situation. VALJ's example ALREADY is one, so tactics may need to change somewhat.
As of this moment, in the original discussion, no one has committed a foul, why treat them as if they have?
I agree. It's a fallback position for when normal officiating methods have been unsuccessful.