|
As someone who coaches HS baseball and officiates basketball, I can understand things from both perspectives. Officials need to understand that the coach has much more at stake and invested in the outcome than the officials, and officials need to consider that in our interaction with coaches. Officials don't have any stake in the outcome of the game and we're there to call a fair game and manage the game. Generally speaking, I don't have problems with coaches who understand that point, and I try to keep that in perspective when coaching.
Of the points mentioned in the post, this is what I take issue with: "No new official will ever get a personal slur, accusation or F-bomb from me, they also won't get my apologies for poking at the edges a little. About 2% is emotion/ego." Firstly, you specified that no "new" official will be insulted like this, I assume you meant all officials. Secondly, what right do you have to "poke at the edges" and what exactly does that mean? Sounds like you are trying to either go after an official personally to get under his skin, or you're trying to throw him off his game. The official is doing a job, what right do you have to intentionally make that job more difficult to do, and what purpose does it serve, other than to stroke your own ego. I have no problem giving explanations, answering questions or even hearing legitimate disagreement, but I do take issue with someone "poking at the edges" to either demean me or make it harder to do my job. How would you like it if your principal or AD sat behind your bench and started "poking at the edges" by criticizing your coaching decisions loudly?
In terms of legitimately dealing with an official, I welcome comments such as "watch for 44 hooking my post player," or something to that effect because it provides me with information that could help me do my job better. The more detailed the information, the more credible it is. I might not see the same thing that you do, but now I know what to look for, or at the least, now I will be able to give you a better explanation if I am not going to make a call. That's good communication, not "working" and the only way a coach can effectively reach that level of communication is if he picks his spots well, and establishes credibility, not by agreeing with every call, but by accepting explanations that I give and most importantly, not constantly begging.
Finally, I accept the argument that a coach needs to stand up for his players, it's one way to maintain control of the team, and to gain respect. I have a rule with my baseball team that players are not allowed to question an umpire's decision, because that's my role as a coach. The line though, is thin, because if you are constantly arguing, you lose credibility with your players, and, as I've seen often officiating, you give your players a scapegoat and a reason to fail. As an official, I have no problem with a coach questioning a call or a no call, as long as they do it without an attempt to show me up and when they get an answer or when play resumes that they leave it alone. Again, we as officials must accept this because the game is a competitive game and the emotions of competition can sometimes take over, but it must never be persistent, get personal or be abrasive in any way.
|