Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by williebfree
JRutledge
I agree with the issue of the consequnces for the player as a result of the Flagrant (it is typical for most state associations). HOWEVER; My points are...
1. Once you have asked the coach to remove the player and he says no, what rules support you to force the coach to take the player out?
2. NOW, after asking the coach to remove the player and he refused, you issue the Flagrant T. If the player's actions warranted a Flagrant T, call it before having contact with the coach.
3. You demanded that the coach take the player out and when the coach refused, you issued the Flagrant. Does this seem like good game management? (Looks like a power struggle to me)
IF I am that coach I am writing a letter to the state association indicating that you escalated the siuation. You asked me to have a player leave and when I disagreed with your request you abused your authority.
|
I will say this. This type of game management is attributed to many officials that have much more clout than I do. This is commom for veteran officials to use this from time to time in basketball and in other sports like football. It works because the coach realizes that if we pull the trigger or if we had pulled the trigger, it would not have been a good thing for his team. Of course it is up to the situation and the official to do something in this case. But if the coach wants to not adhere to the warning, then I will just not worry about all the leeway I was giving and start doing things strictly according the the rules. When I did not call the toe on the box, now I will make an issue out of it. I will not just do it for his team, I will do it for both. Because if you did not want to adhere to the warning, now I will just use every rule to get the situation under control. And the next players that even look like they want to fight will be dealt with accordingly. No warning, no explaination, no rope. Just take care of business and move on. And I have never had a situation where captains or coaches did not get a full understanding of any warning and did not realize the seriousness of the situation after action was taken. You can call it a power struggle or whatever you like. The officials will control the game regardless of what the coaches or the players want. It is up to them if they are going to be apart of the solution or part of the problem.
Peace
|
JRutledge...
I sincerely hope that none of us have to deal with a coach who is this stubborn, but I want to be prepared. I may be a bit anal here, but I want to clarify this scenerio for myself and others.
Again, you have provided some reasonable information about game management, but you have not referenced any rules that support the procedure you initially indicated that you would use in your original response.
I have noticed, in this latest response, that you have backed off from assessing the flagrant AFTER the coach refused to sub for his player, but you indicate that you will now strictly enforce rules for the remainder of the game and be on high alert for potential fights.
Believe it or not, I agree that approaching the coaches and "requesting" them to remove the involved players is good game management. What I disagree with is the decision to issue a flagrant Tech AFTER the coach doesn't heed the warning.
Just curious, can you cite a rule I can use to justify demanding the coach remove his player from the game in this situation (without it being a Flagrant foul or a 2nd T)?