Four Ravens fined for abuse of officials

[tyke1doe]

I'm a b-ball official. So I prolly know a bit more about what an official has to deal than someone who hasn't.

Pwned!

 

[tyke1doe]

They weren't fined because they called the ref a cheat or because he said the ref favored another team.

You don't have to go that far to be fined. Simply saying they made the wrong call can result in a fine.

Well, the story which accompanied this post implies such, which is why Ray Anderson cites "the integrity of our game." When you question an official's call and suggest he's trying to help another team, you're impugning the integrity of the game.

"This is about the importance of sportsmanship and respecting the integrity of our game," NFL vice president of football operations Ray Anderson said. "We do not tolerate inappropriate conduct between teams and game officials. This includes reminding game officials that they are to conduct themselves at all times as professionals in their dealings with players, coaches and other club personnel."

And apparently Billick interpreted the fine to include his team questioning whether refs wanted the Pats to win.

Ravens coach Brian Billick said the team has learned from the experience, and dismissed suggestions by some of his players that New England receives special treatment from game officials.

"To intimate that the Patriots are given some kind of favoritism is ridiculous," Billick said. "That's not the case. Our league works very hard to make sure the officiating is top-notch and unbiased. I was probably remiss after the game in not counseling the players better about the frustrations that I knew existed.

But let's assume you're right.

Let's assume your boss gave you an important memo and you crumpled that memo up in your hand, told him you thought it was B.S. and threw it across the room for all the office to see.

Are you telling me your boss wouldn't fire you?

Again, if you say "No," please tell me where you work because I want to apply for employment and work under your boss.

 

[dogberry]

Talking back to a baseball umpire can get a player or manager tossed. Soccer refs arn't afraid to red card a player and that means the player is also gone for the next game. Technical fouls in basketball are available to their refs, does a football ref have anything in his quiver for verbal abuse?


WG do you have to put up with the abuse from the bench that football officials routinely stand for?

 

[theogt]

Well, the story which accompanied this post implies such, which is why Ray Anderson cites "the integrity of our game." When you question an official's call and suggest he's trying to help another team, you're impugning the integrity of the game.



And apparently Billick interpreted the fine to include his team questioning whether refs wanted the Pats to win.



But let's assume you're right.

Let's assume your boss gave you an important memo and you crumpled that memo up in your hand, told him you thought it was B.S. and threw it across the room for all the office to see.

Are you telling me your boss wouldn't fire you?

Again, if you say "No," please tell me where you work because I want to apply for employment and work under your boss.

Again, you don't have to tell your boss that it's "crap." You don't have to crumple the paper. You don't have to be mean spirited at all. Simply saying they made the wrong call can get you fined.

That's odd to me.

Here's a better analogy. Say you're a high school teacher. And you don't like the way the overnight janitors are doing their job. Perhaps they're not emptying all of your trashcans.

Well, you decide to go to the principal and make a complaint about it. Or perhaps you decide to discuss your complaint with other teachers, and maybe even some students. Then the principal fines you. Would that not seem strange?

 

[WoodysGirl]

Talking back to a baseball umpire can get a player or manager tossed. Soccer refs arn't afraid to red card a player and that means the player is also gone for the next game. Technical fouls in basketball are available to their refs, does a football ref have anything in his quiver for verbal abuse?

I'm not a football ref, tho I considered it at one point. On the high school level, they need all the officials they can get.

I'm sure there's an escalation process with football officials, starting with the yellow flag. Depending on the nature of the infraction, the player and/or coach can get ejected. I think that's universal among all sports.

In b-ball, on the high school level, there are all sorts of ways a coach can get a technical. And usually it's the last thing an official wants to give. That's why they take so much crap. They want the players/coaches to focus on the game.

WG do you have to put up with the abuse from the bench that football officials routinely stand for?

I don't know what kind of abuse football officials take on the field, but if it's anything like b-ball, it can get ugly. I've taken my fair share...from parents, players, and coaches. I've only been scared a couple times and that's only because a parent popped up by my car. Coaches falling out on the floor, loudly insulting my ethics, put their finger in my face while saying they're going to report me.

Had a whole gym booing (highlight of my life , cuz it was so funny), had to put some parents out of the gym, get escorted out by security, or at least wait until gym cleared before I could leave. One parent came up to me to personally give his criticism and I told him to go sit down or I would have security escort him out. I wasn't that nice about it either.

Generally fans are cool, it's just that you always get these yahoos who think their child is the next "whoever" and can do no wrong. They talk alot of crap during the game, but don't don't even look my way when the game is over.

 

[tyke1doe]

Again, you don't have to tell your boss that it's "crap." You don't have to crumple the paper. You don't have to be mean spirited at all. Simply saying they made the wrong call can get you fined.

That's odd to me.

Here's a better analogy. Say you're a high school teacher. And you don't like the way the overnight janitors are doing their job. Perhaps they're not emptying all of your trashcans.

Well, you decide to go to the principal and make a complaint about it. Or perhaps you decide to discuss your complaint with other teachers, and maybe even some students. Then the principal fines you. Would that not seem strange?

Sorry, but that's an awful analogy.

A janitor doesn't have any authoritative power over a teacher - unless the janitor is also the principal. That's like saying a player/teacher gets fined by the commissioner because he complains about the locker rooms being dirty.

Moreover, the principal does not appoint janitors to tell teachers how to do their jobs. But the principal appoints assistant principals who may tell the teacher how to do her job. And if a teacher criticizes the assistant principal (depending on tenure laws which muddy the waters) in public, you can rest assure some type of disciplinary measure will follow.

The league has appointed referees to oversee its games. Refs are responsible for telling players what they can or can't, should or shouldn't do within the course of a game. Players can tell the refs that was a bad call (even coaches have done that) during the game. But once the game is over, to criticize them publicly and suggest that they're "fixing" games will warrant disciplinary measures almost every time as it would in any employment situation where an employee criticizes or questions a supervisor's competence or integrity in front of a group of people.

That player has put the supervisor on the spot and has challenged that supervisor's authority, competency and integrity. It should come as no surprise if that supervisor acts within his authority and disciplines said employee.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm not a football ref, tho I considered it at one point. On the high school level, they need all the officials they can get.

I'm sure there's an escalation process with football officials, starting with the yellow flag. Depending on the nature of the infraction, the player and/or coach can get ejected. I think that's universal among all sports.

In b-ball, on the high school level, there are all sorts of ways a coach can get a technical. And usually it's the last thing an official wants to give. That's why they take so much crap. They want the players/coaches to focus on the game.


I don't know what kind of abuse football officials take on the field, but if it's anything like b-ball, it can get ugly. I've taken my fair share...from parents, players, and coaches. I've only been scared a couple times and that's only because a parent popped up by my car. Coaches falling out on the floor, loudly insulting my ethics, put their finger in my face while saying they're going to report me.

Had a whole gym booing (highlight of my life , cuz it was so funny), had to put some parents out of the gym, get escorted out by security, or at least wait until gym cleared before I could leave. One parent came up to me to personally give his criticism and I told him to go sit down or I would have security escort him out. I wasn't that nice about it either.

Generally fans are cool, it's just that you always get these yahoos who think their child is the next "whoever" and can do no wrong. They talk alot of crap during the game, but don't don't even look my way when the game is over.

I feel for ya, Woody's Girl.

I have friends who are refs (primarily football and baseball) and I considered doing it myself, just don't have the time.

Fans are fickled and their fanaticism sometimes/often clouds their judgment. As a coach, I almost had to pull my kids from the field, the parents were so bad, accusing the refs of bad calls, talking smack to the other parents - even though the calls were judgment calls that could have gone either way.

Some states have increased the penalties for assaulting refs because it's becoming more common.

I know fans, parents and coaches give refs grief, but you have to respect the officials on the field.

I notice even on this board fans become so involved in these games they can't see straight. Even when I look at the Gaffney TD, as much as I wanted the Pats to lose, he wasn't bobbling the ball. He caught it with his finger tips then brought it in.

Now you can call that a judgment call by the refs, but it's clearly not a case of an obvious, unmistakeable bobble before he goes out of bounds.

But people are so wanting to see the Pats lose, their eyes convince them they're seeing something they're not.

But it can't be that. It has to be that the refs want the Pats to go undefeated.

 

[dogberry]

WG thank you for the detailed explanation, Kent

 

[theogt]

Sorry, but that's an awful analogy.

A janitor doesn't have any authoritative power over a teacher - unless the janitor is also the principal. That's like saying a player/teacher gets fined by the commissioner because he complains about the locker rooms being dirty.

Moreover, the principal does not appoint janitors to tell teachers how to do their jobs. But the principal appoints assistant principals who may tell the teacher how to do her job. And if a teacher criticizes the assistant principal (depending on tenure laws which muddy the waters) in public, you can rest assure some type of disciplinary measure will follow.

The league has appointed referees to oversee its games. Refs are responsible for telling players what they can or can't, should or shouldn't do within the course of a game. Players can tell the refs that was a bad call (even coaches have done that) during the game. But once the game is over, to criticize them publicly and suggest that they're "fixing" games will warrant disciplinary measures almost every time as it would in any employment situation where an employee criticizes or questions a supervisor's competence or integrity in front of a group of people.

That player has put the supervisor on the spot and has challenged that supervisor's authority, competency and integrity. It should come as no surprise if that supervisor acts within his authority and disciplines said employee.

That's fine. But your analogies were terrible as well. Obviously we just see this differently. This particular situation is really unlike any other employment relationship, so it's no surprise that it would be hard to come up with an analogous situation.

I think openly punishing public criticism just reeks of arrogance.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I feel for ya, Woody's Girl.

I have friends who are refs (primarily football and baseball) and I considered doing it myself, just don't have the time.

Fans are fickled and their fanaticism sometimes/often clouds their judgment. As a coach, I almost had to pull my kids from the field, the parents were so bad, accusing the refs of bad calls, talking smack to the other parents - even though the calls were judgment calls that could have gone either way.

Some states have increased the penalties for assaulting refs because it's becoming more common.

I know fans, parents and coaches give refs grief, but you have to respect the officials on the field.

That's the primary reason why you don't want the players publicly criticizing the officials. JMO, but it makes it so much harder to do a game if an official's credibility comes into question. I've been accused several times of "home cooking" when I don't know anyone in the whole gym, including my co-official. Crazy stuff, man.

But believe it or not, it's not all bad. I have more fun than you would think...simply cuz I love the game and I get to see it up close and personal. That's why I briefly considered doing football. Problem is, the woman in me came out. Don't want to mess up my hair.

I notice even on this board fans become so involved in these games they can't see straight. Even when I look at the Gaffney TD, as much as I wanted the Pats to lose, he wasn't bobbling the ball. He caught it with his finger tips then brought it in.

Now you can call that a judgment call by the refs, but it's clearly not a case of an obvious, unmistakeable bobble before he goes out of bounds.

But people are so wanting to see the Pats lose, their eyes convince them they're seeing something they're not.

But it can't be that. It has to be that the refs want the Pats to go undefeated.

I agree with that. You can replay that several times and still not know for sure. Mike Peiera on NFLN said the same thing. He'd watched it 20 times, I believe, and basically said that because of the camera angle that you have to go with the call on the field, no matter what it was, because there wasn't a clear, indisputable way to tell. He said the ruling would've stood even if they'd ruled it incomplete.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's fine. But your analogies were terrible as well. Obviously we just see this differently.

My analogies weren't terrible. I may have overestimated the reason why they were fined, but it wasn't an unreasonable overestimation given that's what the players did, i.e., accuse the refs of cheating, tossing the ref's flag. That may have factored into the fine or it could have been as simple as criticizing the refs publicly.

Anyway, the point of my analogy is if you criticize authority publicly, you will face discipline.

It was not if you criticize an equal or someone lower on the totem pole of authority, you get disciplined - which is what your analogy suggested.

 

[theogt]

My analogies weren't terrible. I may have overestimated the reason why they were fined, but it wasn't an unreasonable overestimation given that's what the players did, i.e., accuse the refs of cheating, tossing the ref's flag. That may have factored into the fine or it could have been as simple as criticizing the refs publicly.

No, your analogy resulted in punishment for actions that aren't the topic of discussion. It was a complete non sequitur.

But I guess, since you say it wasn't terrible, it wasn't.

Anyway, the point of my analogy is if you criticize authority publicly, you will face discipline.

And the point of my original post is that that is odd.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think openly punishing public criticism just reeks of arrogance.

Yes, we should just let everyone criticize their bosses, question their bosses' integrity and just have the bosses accept it cheerfully.

If you are a boss, can I please come work for you?

 

[theogt]

Yes, we should just let everyone criticize their bosses, question their bosses' integrity and just have the bosses accept it cheerfully.

If you are a boss, can I please come work for you?

Neither you, nor the mods, would want me to answer that question.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, your analogy resulted in punishment for actions that aren't the topic of discussion. It was a complete non sequitur.

Uh, no, it's not.

Here's the logic being employed.

Players criticize the officials publicly, players get fined.

Within criticism we have the following conduct: saying after the game the refs wanted the Pats, saying that the calls were bad, arguing with the refs during the game, throwing the flag.

Even if all those reasons were not part of the reason for the penalty, it still follows logically that criticism of the officials produced a penalty.

That's my point.

Your non sequitur point was that if you criticize a non-player/janitor, it would be strange if the principal/commissioner suspends you. That is as non-sequitur as you can get.

Moreover, I contend Scott's conduct on the field with respect to him criticizing the officials AND tossing the flag netted the finey. What evidence do I offer to support my conclusion?

Bart Scott and three other players on the Baltimore Ravens were fined by the NFL on Friday for arguing with game officials and complaining about calls in Monday's game against the New England Patriots.

Scott, who argued with officials and tossed a penalty flag into the stands, was fined $25,000. Cornerbacks Chris McAlister and Samari Rolle and wide receiver Derrick Mason each were fined $15,000 for critical remarks made after the game.

Scott got fined more than McAlister, Rolle and Mason. Scott also criticized the officiating crew AFTER the game. So why is his fine greater?

Uh, because he criticized the officials DURING THE GAME. And how did he criticize the officials or show disdain towards the officiating crew? By jawing with the officials AND throwing the flag into the stands.

That's why, I surmise, he received the more costly fine.

So my point makes perfect sense, your protestation to the contrary.

But I guess, since you say it wasn't terrible, it wasn't.

I guess rolling eye symbols are offered to trump sound arguments.

And the point of my original post is that that is odd.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

 

[theogt]

Uh, no, it's not.

Here's the logic being employed.

Players criticize the officials publicly, players get fined.

Within criticism we have the following conduct: saying after the game the refs wanted the Pats, saying that the calls were bad, arguing with the refs during the game, throwing the flag.

Even if all those reasons were not part of the reason for the penalty, it still follows logically that criticism of the officials produced a penalty.

That's my point.

Your non sequitur point was that if you criticize a non-player/janitor, it would be strange if the principal/commissioner suspends you. That is as non-sequitur as you can get.

Moreover, I contend Scott's conduct on the field with respect to him criticizing the officials AND tossing the flag netted the finey. What evidence do I offer to support my conclusion?



Scott got fined more than McAlister, Rolle and Mason. Scott also criticized the officiating crew AFTER the game. So why is his fine greater?

Uh, because he criticized the officials DURING THE GAME. And how did he criticize the officials or show disdain towards the officiating crew? By jawing with the officials AND throwing the flag into the stands.

That's why, I surmise, he received the more costly fine.

So my point makes perfect sense, your protestation to the contrary.




I guess rolling eye symbols are offered to trump sound arguments.



That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

You seem to have trouble both understanding the English language and conveying very simple thoughts in a very simple manner.

 

[Kilyin]

You know it's a heated debate when they start breaking out the Latin. That's why today's word of the day is "non sequitur".

Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation:
\ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Does anyone else think it's odd that an organization fines its members for criticizing it?

Nope. If only we could fine some folks in here...

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Eh...public outrage might be the only catalyst for change.

I just think it looks bad to fine players and coaches for criticizing calls. It's almost reached the point where announcers are afraid to criticize calls.

It really just sort of plays into the "fascist" view of the NFL and Goodell where he's all-powerful and apparently immune from public criticism.

Yes, it does, especially for those of us already prone to baseless conspiracy theories.

 

[Jarv]

Speaking of BB refs, where has Blindzebra been ?