"Protect" partner or let him TKOB?

[SC Official]

This happened in a recent game where I was U1.

Young U2 (who does a great job and has some college experience) is in the home coach's doghouse from the getgo. Late in the second quarter, he whacks a home team player for taunting, and predictably the coach goes nuts. As partner is reporting the T, rather than him getting to deal with the coach himself, the R comes in and makes him go opposite. (The coach yelled "We can't have softness in my gym!" which I thought was T-worthy but I wouldn't step over the R or U2 to whack him.)

The sentiment of the U2 in the dressing room was that the R coming in added fuel to the coach's perception that the U2 was incompetent and needed to be protected by his veteran partner. The R was adamant that he did the right thing by getting the U2 out of the way of the coach and not calling a T on the coach. The R said we should go opposite after calling any T (not just one on a coach), which I don't think makes sense under high school mechanics. (Obviously the typical expectation when a coach gets whacked is for the calling official to go opposite.)

I tend to agree with the U2 in that he was more than capable of handling the coach by himself and that nothing good came from the R stepping in attempting to "save the day." If the coach needed to be whacked, so be it, and it seemed like the R was only interested in preventing that, which I thought was wrong.

Anyone disagree with me or have other thoughts?

[Camron Rust]

Without being there, hard to really know.

Going opposite is not a bad idea after a T. If nothing else, creating the space will either let the coach settle down or make it blatantly obvious he's earned the T. I don't like the R forcing that so visibly, however. In a discussion, the R and the U2 could have come to that agreement.

[APG]

Ideally:

If I call a player T, I'm gonna stay tableside...I'll be the one to force a switch opposite if need be. If I'm the partner, I'm not going to force a switch UNLESS I know I'm working with a newer official.

Ideally, after the T is called, me (or other partner) is getting to the calling official before he/she reports/administers anything. At that point, one can judge/ask about what happened, and if the official wants to stay or go opposite.

[stripes]

Originally Posted by apg

ideally:

If i call a player t, i'm gonna stay tableside...i'll be the one to force a switch opposite if need be. If i'm the partner, i'm not going to force a switch unless i know i'm working with a newer official.

Ideally, after the t is called, me (or other partner) is getting to the calling official before he/she reports/administers anything. At that point, one can judge/ask about what happened, and if the official wants to stay or go opposite.

+1

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SC Official

This happened in a recent game where I was U1.

Young U2 (who does a great job and has some college experience) is in the home coach's doghouse from the getgo. Late in the second quarter, he whacks a home team player for taunting, and predictably the coach goes nuts. As partner is reporting the T, rather than him getting to deal with the coach himself, the R comes in and makes him go opposite. (The coach yelled "We can't have softness in my gym!" which I thought was T-worthy but I wouldn't step over the R or U2 to whack him.)

The sentiment of the U2 in the dressing room was that the R coming in added fuel to the coach's perception that the U2 was incompetent and needed to be protected by his veteran partner. The R was adamant that he did the right thing by getting the U2 out of the way of the coach and not calling a T on the coach. The R said we should go opposite after calling any T (not just one on a coach), which I don't think makes sense under high school mechanics. (Obviously the typical expectation when a coach gets whacked is for the calling official to go opposite.)

I tend to agree with the U2 in that he was more than capable of handling the coach by himself and that nothing good came from the R stepping in attempting to "save the day." If the coach needed to be whacked, so be it, and it seemed like the R was only interested in preventing that, which I thought was wrong.

Anyone disagree with me or have other thoughts?

Camron and APG are two veteran officials that make excellent points.

But I would like to make one observation and one comment (which will no doubt make me ramble on):


Observation: SC Official in his OP stated that the HC "went nuts" when the U2 charged his player with a TF for taunting. The "went nuts" description made me think that the HC should have been 'whacked' right then and there for unsportsmanlike conduct. "went nuts" reminds me of Hank Nichols guide line for when to 'whack' a HC (an AC has an even lower guide line) and that is "when he acts like an idiot". Going "nuts" sounds like the HC acted like an "idiot" and should have been 'whacked' and without being there to see the situation unfold I think that the U2 should have been the one to 'whack' the HC.


Comment: Whether this is a high school (VAR and lower) or a college game would have some bearing on how I would handle this situation. No matter what level the game is I normally would not go Opposite after a player TF. APG is correct that before any reporting is done by the U2, the Crew should have met at the Center Circle to discuss the situation (while continuing to observe all of the Players and the Benches). The discussion would allow the Crew to come to a consensus as to how it should handle the situation.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

This should have been pregamed so that the court would not have been the first place this was discussed. I always pregame how we handle Ts so that I know how officials feel about our switching or how we deal with the coach. I think that a competent official can handle any coach, even if they are in the dog house. I totally see why the U2 might have not liked the actions of the R, but that is why you pregame this so that everyone is on the same page and it looks smoother.

Peace

[deecee]

I personally pregame that I DONT need help or rescue with a coach/player. From the OP I would have T'd the coach because 'nuts' usually means out of line.

A player T I will usually let a coach know if they ask what he did. If a coach is on my "naughty" list I may tell them to ask the player what happened or ignore them. But I try and provide that information.

I would personally be upset if a partner came in on a horse to "protect" me. 1) It makes the official look incompetent 2) It usually compounds the matter because such partners won't call the necessary cheap shot.

As the U1 you should have called the T. If the R asked why you did that your response should be "One of us has to do our job." I hate cheap shots, especially the chicken sh!t coaches that wait until the game is over.

[jTheUmp]

If it's a coach getting whacked, I've always had the calling official call it, report it, and then go opposite.

If it's a player, we generally prefer to stay tableside so we can let the coach know what happened. But if the coach acts the fool and gets whacked also, that's on him/her.

And yes, this is something I include in my pregame, especially with partner(s) I've not worked with before.

[Adam]

My pregame on this is that we will come together after an technical foul to make sure we get it right. In that conference, the calling official will decide if he needs some space from the coach.

And yes, it seems as if we'd be shooting 4 shots in my game. The R was spineless, IMO, and probably afraid of being crossed off by the coach.

[kelvinsmerli]

Screw that, its the official that called it who has the decision of stayin or goin.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[kelvinsmerli]

I'm with MTDsr.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[loners4me]

Ive removed myself but if my partner cuts my legs out, we have a problem. You said college ball.....he aint no rookie

[SC Official]

The irony is that in the dressing room, the R said a T is "just another foul." Yet he wanted to treat it like a different foul by forcing the U2 to go away from the coach instead of letting him TCOB himself.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

I had a game last year where I wasn't working with my regular partner and we were doing 2-person. Coach was a putz. I told him early to knock off the behavior so he wasn't talking to me. (Which I was OK with).

Partner makes a call that the coach doesn't like and lights up partner. Partner calls T. I walk toward the bench just to see what is going on. Unlike R in this situation, I did not intervene for the reasons U2 appeared to have had in the scenario.

Two seconds later came T # 2 and Mr. Coach is on his way to the school bus. Part of me still thinks if I would have gotten involved we could have avoided the ejection. I am pretty good at keeping control of a game (35 years experience will sometimes do that for you). I think my partner maybe got a little too emotional and we already knew the coach had issues.

I just don't think there is a right and wrong way to handle. I really like the idea of pregaming T's. I will do that tomorrow for sure.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I had a game last year where I wasn't working with my regular partner and we were doing 2-person. Coach was a putz. I told him early to knock off the behavior so he wasn't talking to me. (Which I was OK with).

Partner makes a call that the coach doesn't like and lights up partner. Partner calls T. I walk toward the bench just to see what is going on. Unlike R in this situation, I did not intervene for the reasons U2 appeared to have had in the scenario.

Two seconds later came T # 2 and Mr. Coach is on his way to the school bus. Part of me still thinks if I would have gotten involved we could have avoided the ejection. I am pretty good at keeping control of a game (35 years experience will sometimes do that for you). I think my partner maybe got a little too emotional and we already knew the coach had issues.

I just don't think there is a right and wrong way to handle. I really like the idea of pregaming T's. I will do that tomorrow for sure.

Why is the onus on the official not to get emotional? When the first T was given, that should be a signal to the coach or player, "I cannot play around anymore" and if they cross the line, the should realize it is time for them to go. Even if the official was emotional as you state, I still think the coach needs to realize their behavior has to stop and often it does not stop.

Peace