Quote:
Originally Posted by chseagle
Has this Tuesday night: The V C-Squad coach stated that before he became a coach he was an official for 10 years.
During the game, his team only had 5 fouls compared to the home team having 15 fouls.
Which is better: a coach that was an official or an official that was a coach?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
The answer depends solely on the individual.
|
The most accurate answer thus far, from my perspective. As my board name suggests, I have done both.
I find that many referees make bad coaches as they frequently know the rules, but not the Xs and Os. They tend to focus more on US in those cases because they know reffing better than the Xs and Os. But, there are exceptions that know the the Xs and Os very well. In those cases, they don't have much time for US.
I think that coaches tend to make good referees because they can relate to the challenges the coaches face. At the same time, sometimes, coaches-turned-referees tend to worry too much about the type of offense or defense a team is running (and why) and fail to focus on off-the-ball responsibilities (most coaches "ball watch" as coaches and many tend to continue that habit when starting to referee).
Bottom line is, JR is right. It really just depends on the individual -- and, to some extent their experience level in each.