|
I think you were right to "head him off" on the way to the table. You asked the right question: "What do you have?" He responded: "Automatic T." This is where I think the whole approach should have been different. Instead of: "I, knowing better, said he was protecting himself," you might try the following approach: "The T isn't 'automatic' if he was protecting himself. Did you see the players under/around him?" Maybe he saw them, maybe he didn't. You then might have tried: "Look, from my perspective I thought he was protecting himself and I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is your call and I'll support you no matter what call you make. What are you going to report to the table?"
If your partner says that he's going to stick with the T, you say: "I like your fortitude. Go give it to him." If your partner says that he thinks maybe he shouldn't give the T, you say: "Then let's talk about how we're going to handle it. Since you made the call, I think it's better if you go report it. Just stand in front of the table, at your normal reporting position, and say in a loud, firm voice, 'There's no T because the player was protecting himself on the rim. We're going to the alternating possession arrow because of the inadvertant whistle.' and then let's get the ball back in play."
That's just a suggestion for an alternative approach. I agree with the others who have said that this is not an "overrule" area and thus the original caller ought to be making the "change," if there is one. Even though your desire to protect a second-year guy is admirable, I think you'll end up helping him more by helping him learn how to handle himself, rather than learn how to be handled.
Given the way it did happen, I absolutely agree that you had to give Coach B the technical foul he earned. I don't think your partner should have been over explaining anything to the coach during the FT administration -- what is there to explain? Everyone saw what happened. I also don't think you should have gone over to the coach after the FT, particularly not without an invitation/request.
I disagree with zebracz when s/he says: "In this type of major overruling (or call-change,) you've got to bring both coaches together AT THE SAME TIME, IN FRONT OF THE TABLE, to admin it to them BOTH together." That might be the right approach, but it might not be. In our area, we had an experienced official in a similar situation to the one you described. He was L and blew his whistle to call a T on a player hanging on the rim. His C approached the L and told him that he (the C) thought the player was protecting himself. The L did not agree but, on the theory that his partner would only approach him if he was 100% sure of himself, he decided to wipe off the T. He went to the table and called both coaches to come over to hear his explanation. One coach wouldn't come. That coach knew what was about to happen and he didn't want to hear it. As it turned out, the L ended up needing to call a T on the uncooperative coach. In a sense, requesting something of someone who you know is going to be unhappy can be an invitation to disaster. Anyway, the point is that it is not ALWAYS the right idea to call everyone together.
Thanks for posting the situation. We can all learn from going over this stuff.
|