"Protect" partner or let him TKOB?

[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.