Quote:
Originally posted by 112448
"If you speak to one coach, speak to them both. Coaches are suspicious of officials to begin with, don't do anything to confirm their suspicions. If you want to minimize the conversation and don't feel like talking, bring them both together. There is no advantage to be gained by either of them, and the talk will be brief."
|
In general, this advice is very well taken. But refs talk to coaches throughout the game, as coaches say, "what did you call there?" or quietly protest a lack of a call. I consider brief and pointed statements in response to questions or comments appropriate and common among the best refs. Similarly, a brief answer to a pointed pregame question is significantly different from an extended chat. If he hangs around talking, you need to make yourself scarce to avoid an improper appearance.
Todd gave what sounds like a brief and concise explanation of the rule and left it until they violated, at which point he called it, as he would regardless of talking to the coach first. He isn't looking for friends or the support of the coach, just telling him a straightforward rule. As for the coach protesting at that point, he just shows his stupidity. He had shown his hand early (making Todd aware that he might have to make this call), was been told that this would not fly and then his players did it anyway. The pregame discussion obviously did not give the coach any advantage in this case, and I would argue that explaining a rule in no way favors a coach (and the coach who is smart enough to ask is that much better for having done so).