Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
I still disagree that the conversation was specifically about the partner's call. It was, indirectly, only when the coach turned an innocent answer against the partner.
If, after a few trips up and down the court after some call by a parnter, a coach asks me about a rule, I'm answering a rules question without any comment on a partner's prior call. If it is right away, it is clear it is about that call and I'll refer them to the calling official (unless I know I had the same thing). If my partner gets a rule wrong, that is not on me. It is not my job to know my partner kicked a rule 5 possessions ago such that I have to avoid talking about that rule in the future. I will have said nothing about whether my partner was correct or not.
The coach should have been T'd when he twisted it around against the prior call.
|
There can be variance of opinions on issuing a T. I'm pretty sure I'd call it myself in that situation though I understand why the official involved didnt.
Speaking of which, have you talked to the official involved about this situation? Because I have. Mutliple times.
HE HIMSELF USES IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH COACHES ABOUT PARTNERS CALLS.
So it doesnt matter what you agree or disagree with here. Whether or not the conversation was about the previous call is not a matter of opinion. It is fact. Your mention of a kicked rule 5 possessions later has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I think I get what point you are trying to make about this being on the coach but its strange the length you are willing to go in order to do so.