Quote:
Originally Posted by seanwestref
I attended a clinic at the beginning of the season (October) and they had a coaches panel. Here are my notes verbatim of what coaches want from officials.
Coaches want an experienced crew, or at least one experienced guy.
Coaches don't want strangers officiating a big game.
Coaches want sectional officials to have worked one of their games during the season.
Coaches think sectional games are played and officiated differently.
There is a better way to ref than just blow the whistle.
Crews are better for post-season games (currently the assignments are random).
The more you talk the better ref you are.
Gotta protect the shooter.
Be aware of previous games that may have been officiated differently, the goal is consistency between games/officials.
Gotta like kids.
The game is about adjustment. Officials need to anticipate and stay ahead of the curve.
If a coach is out of control, talk to him. If you made a mistake, admit it and move on.
Make sure to give equal opportunity to talk to officials.
Consistency is the key -- watch back-to-back calls.
Be on time to the game and get your contracts in on time.
Consistency in calls can be dependent on rotations and mechanics.
Coaches want officials to have good positioning.
Which of these do you guys agree/disagree with?
|
Most of this is reasonable stuff. As we are all stakeholders in a game that we want to see grow and develop, at least having dialogue and respecting each others concerns is important.
In terms of direct feedback. Coaches want experienced crews but crews also only get experienced by refs gaining experience when they don't have any. At some point you've got to have a new guy/gal or two cutting teeth. You may know it, coaches may know it, but they too have to respect that fact and not try to exploit or overreact in those situations.
In terms of sectional games being played differently/reffed differently in our neck of the woods that is true. Once you get the playoffs only officials of a certain rating can do games, where as through the year its covered regionally by a wider variety of ability. You get the to the final and suddenly you've got more savy guys with a better eye for violations and much more likely to try to interpret adv/dis to have better game flow. It becomes much different then a reguarl season game particulary for the road teams.
I agree the shooter has to be protected because they are airborn and don't have hands free to protect or balance themselves. I think the problem becomes when you define protect the shooter. Not letting a kid wander the streets after dark helps to protect, but so does bubble wrapping them and never letting them out of the house. The problem becomes the interpretted or expected level of protection.
I can understand close plays that both go against one side being frustrating for coaches, but if we are consistently applying the rules the same way even a similar situation you can get different results. I think this is much more of a concern in two man games where there are bigger coverage areas and the consistency between two officials can be a problem. More often you might get the guy at one end letting a play go and then the other guy feeling they have to call it at the other to get it under control.
Like kids is probably an overstatement though it would be nice. THe professional expectation should probably be that you need to be able to empathize or relate with kids. If a kid who's brain is not wired the same as an adults and doesn't repsond to stimulus the same way seems to be unreasonable to us as adults that is pretty normal. The fact that they struggle to adapt to officials or changes in the game or from game to game should be expected, not poo-poo'd or seen as a reason for us to get frustrated with them.