Coach Berating Players

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

How a coach conducts himself when it comes to the game, and how a coach conducts himself when dealing with his players, are two different things. I believe we officials are only meant to be concerned about the game.

Now, can a coach's actions towards his players carry over into affecting the game, thus putting us into a position to do something? I suppose. But until then I don't see where we should get involved.

If his actions/words do not carry over from his team's bench, huddles on the court during timeouts, or in the locker room, into the game then do we really have any jurisdiction?

Mind you, I'm only speaking of high school contests.

The NFHS has made it clear that language, for example, is within our jurisdiction. A coach doesn't get to address his players any old way, I just think we should be very careful and selective about when we respond.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

The NFHS has made it clear that language, for example, is within our jurisdiction. A coach doesn't get to address his players any old way, I just think we should be very careful and selective about when we respond.

That would fall under his actions (or words, in this case) affecting the game. But using that language to his players, in and of itself, does not seem like grounds for us to get involved.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

That would fall under his actions (or words, in this case) affecting the game. But using that language to his players, in and of itself, does not seem like grounds for us to get involved.

The NFHS has stated otherwise. If he yells for a player to "Get your f32king head in the game", that's a T (for most of us) in spite of the fact that he's talking to his players. The NFHS has been more than clear that talking to players is not a reprieve from the sportsmanship rules.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

The NFHS has stated otherwise. If he yells for a player to "Get your f32king head in the game", that's a T (for most of us) in spite of the fact that he's talking to his players. The NFHS has been more than clear that talking to players is not a reprieve from the sportsmanship rules.

I agree. This is an instance where his actions/words towards his players affects the game.

The fact that he may be disrespecting his players or whatever, is not in and of itself grounds for the technical foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I agree. This is an instance where his actions/words towards his players affects the game.

The fact that he may be disrespecting his players or whatever, is not in and of itself grounds for the technical foul.

I'm probably arguing semantics at this point, but I don't see how his words to his player has any actual affect on the game, yet we call that. We would probably draw our line at a similar spot in practice, though.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm probably arguing semantics at this point, but I don't see how his words to his player has any actual affect on the game, yet we call that. We would probably draw our line at a similar spot in practice, though.

I'm just trying to find a separation between doing our jobs and doing the jobs of parents, ADs, etc.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm just trying to find a separation between doing our jobs and doing the jobs of parents, ADs, etc.

We all do, but there are some things we do (part of our jobs) that are in response to things that don't actually affect the game (tobacco use is another). We do need to be careful not to overstep our bounds.