If you had cautioned him for Dissent the first time he quoted the rule book to you as you ran by, he would have shut up. And if he hadn't, you have a tool for that, as well.
Chaik, it could be worse. We had a referee, who didn't know the difference either, give a coach a caution because her captain was wearing the arm band on her calf. Sigh. Not only not knowing the difference between illegal and improper but also using bad judgment by making a scene over a triviality.
If he has cautioned the coach for dissent, he would be shut up. And gone. He was already on a YC for the illegal equipment.
Ughhh, one of my stupid pet peeves. They are ARM bands, not calf bands. Not to mention it flies in the face of the all important SOCK initiative! Is it REALLY that difficult to put the damn thing on your arm? It is the one thing they actually follow in the professional leagues but these kids want to be different. Sorry, off my old man rant, feel like I need to yell "GET OFF MY LAWN" now. Just FYI, when I see it I mention that it is improper equipment, I let them know that they SHOULD be worn on the arm and if the other teams coach wants to make a stink about it they will have to move it. But it still grinds my gears...
arm band is not required equipment, nor does it bestow any special abilities. If it doesn't fit, they can take it off.
I was told by our USSF state director of assessment, PRO AR assessor, and high school coach that he got a yellow for "One of my numbskull kids didn't have his shin guards in." He asked, "Is that illegal or improper?" The AR on his side told him to take the ref class to learn the rules and the center was rather rude in giving out the yellow and wouldn't let it go. The referee was rather shocked when he took the advanced referee clinic and the coach he had carded was leading the class on assistant referee movement.
I think that the NFHS rule is a little more than “should.” I think the NFHS rule says that it WILL be worn on the arm.
In baseball, bringing out a rulebook is very close to an automatic ejection. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I would make very clear that it was unacceptable as soon as it started.
Correct, but I don't play that way. I am not going to make them switch, I am just going to say if the other coach complains than I HAVE to make them switch. One of those, "just play the damn game" things for me.
Oh but I do have that coach in my area. The first thing they will point out before the match is the other team warming up with armbands on their socks.
Eh. He wasn't ranting and raving, just in a conversational voice quoting the "rule" to me every time I was in ear shot. To the entire crowd on the other side of the field it would have looked like he was spending the game texting and not coaching. And, he's generally a yeller (not necessarily at the refs, but at his team), so this kept him relatively quiet for 15 minutes or so. It was kind of nice. And he was the one who clearly looked like a jerk to everyone in the stands. The second yellow would have been much more of a "thing" than letting him waste his time reading the wrong rule on his phone for 15 minutes.
More than once is too much. He is telling you repeatedly that you are wrong. I know some refs that wouldn't allow it once.
Not so much a rule change, but question of proper application... HSGV, dual, closing 30 secs of a 1-0 game. Visitors in the lead, taking a throw-in around the top of their defensive third. Home player comes right up to thrower, well inside of 2 yards, and starts waving arms and hollering at thrower. - Thrower makes the throw to a teammate who's immediately challenged for the ball. - R1 whistles for the encroachment, not for the UB visual & verbal distraction. - He then awards visitors IFK just inside the field of play from their throw-in spot.. We chatted post-game... He said he didn't call UB and YC the home player so they would not benefit from a stopped clock and since the throw was legal and came into play while the home player was committing the illegal acts, he chose an IFK. My thoughts were that whether calling the encroachment or UB distraction on the throw-in, it would be a YC then retake the throw, no real options for an IFK. But, I could easily be missing something in the NFHS rules or the creative application thereof...
I think that’s a bit of BS on the refs part. This is the section from the rules, interestingly no restart is given but the logic of all restarts which are interfered with would be a re throw.
Stop the clock, issue the card to the doofus, take the throw-in unimpeded and away we go. Part of your partner's explanation may come from NCAA rule 5.6.2 which gives the referee the choice of letting the clock run in the last 5 when a losing team player is carded, but it was a high school match and it should be a throw-in nevertheless. I have no problem running across the field as the trail to deal with a situation identical to yours (after giving my partner the first whack at doing it correctly); there is no good reason to let play start, nevermind continue unless there is a promising attack (and it better be REALLY promising). Regardless, that player is getting a caution 100% of the time.
Couldn't see for sure from deep opposite half, didn't have comm's, and for all I knew it was dangerous play or something with the crowd of players around the action. Post-game is when I got the details. I understood what he thought and was trying to accomplish, but told him that sounded like flawed logic and was a misapplication of the Rules - we'd look it up later. Fortunately no one raised a fuss... Yet I strongly suspect the Visitor's HC knew, but was happy the clock wasn't stopped and they won so he stayed quiet on it.