quote:
Originally posted by Todd (Mike) Mullen on 12-26-1999 06:07 PM
With all due respect . . .
I think there are quite a few things you ADDED. The original post didn't say ther were arguing (in fact, if you check it, it actually said "neither the coach nor the ref were arguing"), you simply focused on that word. In addition, although there may have been a second technical called, that is not stated in the original post either - you simply assumed one was called. I call that poor reading comprehension.
I couldn't disagree with you more on explaining rules to coaches. For me, it falls under "preventive officiating." If I move to report a foul and a coach has a question or is asking for an explanation in a reasonable or respectful way, I have no problem providing one. But I'm not conducting a clinic out there - it's a word or two and I'm putting the ball back in play.
BTW, in Pennsylvania, a coach is not allowed to stand at all (except to call a time-out, confer with the scorer's table about a correctable error or a timing or scoring error, or to replace an injured or disqualified player). While I don't tell them to sit when I see a coach standing, I do give them a subtle hand gesture indicating my desire for them to return to the bench. If this upsets them, they get the technical they should have gotten when I first saw them standing (it is supposed to be automatic here in PA).
Good Luck!
Have a Safe and Happy New Year Everyone!
tmm
[This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 26, 1999).]
TMM,
Thanks for your response. I added nothing to the original comment. Let's go back and examine it. You left out the word "OUTLOUD".
The coach and official could not be heard by the author of the statement because 'neither the coach nor the ref were 'arguing outloud'. I reason that there was some type of an argument (why did the author choose to use the word 'arguing' and not a word like ... discussing, joking, screaming, talking, etc.). You sir, simply refused to use the entire sentence. Also, since (according to the first sentence of the post) the coach was ejected, any reasonable official would suspect it was for two technicals. Since the coach had received one 'T' for disputing a call, and it was so stated in sentence 2 of the post. Now, the other official approaches the coach to inform her of the lost coaching box and the coach continues to protest. The author writes, " I assume she was still hot and continued complaining about the call(s)". This was complaining aimed at the 'other' official. Now, since we understand that the coach was ejected (read the 1st sentence), I think it is excellent reading comprehension to reason that the second official issued the second technical foul.
What I find to be most interesting is your stated comment that you refuse to enforce all the rules. You see, my 'reading comprehension' is not that bad. Look at your statement in the 3rd paragraph. It appears that you only give technical fouls when you 'feel' that the coach is 'upset' by your hand gesture.
Then, you state, '... supposed to be automatic here in PA'. So, you are going to bend the rules for your own satisfaction. That is what we call 'selective' officiating. You MUST enforce ALL of the rules. The best way to get a 'bad' rule changed is to call it!!!
While I often respect those that disagree with me, I'm having a difficult time respecting someone who openly refuses to enforce a rule. What if your next partner refuses to enforce the 'travelling rule' or the 'goaltending rule'? It would be interesting to know how many times in a game you give the coach a 'hand gesture' to remind them to stay seated. I'll guarantee you that the coaches know exactly how far and how much they can 'get away with' when you're calling their games.
Then in paragraph 2, you said, "if I move to report a foul and a coach has a question or is asking for an explanation in a reasonable or respectful way, I have no problem providing one". Sir, if you are reporting the foul in the designated area (pg. 36 of the official's 1999/2000 manual), there is no way that you should come from that area to answer any question. The entire purpose of moving it further on the court was to keep officials away from the coaches and vice versa. How many times can you answer a question or give an explanation in 'one or two words'? Also, 'preventive officiating' is 99% on the floor and not on the sidelines with the coaches.
It appears from a couple of your statements that you have too much concern or sympathy for the coaches. Forget the coaches, and do what is best for the game and for the kids.
Best of luck,
KDM