[Freddy]

Based on video review, I'm discovering more and more that most frequently the comments coaches make are not so much grounded in the play that just happened, but in what could best be called "lobbying for future calls." Maybe, just maybe, the coach can gain an advantage in the upcoming minutes if he puts up a fuss on what he cites as an instance to which he'd like to see an outcome more favorable for him the next time it might occur.

Furthermore, there's what I have come to label, "Phantom Complaints." When a coach says, "I just wanna see one illegal screen called on #24 before this game is over," but #24 is a bench-rider who hasn't even been in the game yet, I say, "Hmmmm." I've sensed, and found in review, more of those kinds of fabricated complaints than I formerly thought occurred. Thus, similarly classified as another technique of "lobbying...".

Another thing: only about 1/3 of the time is the coach's comment to "Keep an eye out for..." directed at the official who was involved with or will next be able to respond by some kind of more diligent surveillance of alleged missed infraction. He's usually pleading whatever case he feels he has to a different official than he feels missed the call on the last play anyway. For an official to say, during the course of live ball action, in that situation, "We'll keep an eye on it, coach", to me seems disingenuous since that official can't have possible met with said partners to come to any sort of agreement to focus on alleged overlooked action.

Nothing wrong, in my book, with spreading a little good will by using an innocuous phrase like, "I'll keep an eye on it, coach." Most of the time, after his brief episode of venting, he's dwelling on the next series of plays anyway. And anyway, all he probably really wants to know is that you "care".

Best, in that case, to be careful of the pronoun used. "I'll..." - okay. "We'll..." - maybe not.