Coaches & Officials Meeting

[Matt S.]

I've sat in on a couple of these, but agree with Rut.

Coordinators tell us the same thing every year - coaches want us to be able to communicate with them. They want to be 'heard.' Is communication vital? Of course.

But as far as your roundtable goes, I think an overview of POE's, rule changes, and a Q&A with coaches would cover the basics.

[Raymond]

If you want an effective and meaningful interaction with the coaches, invite a local college coach (the higher the level, the better) to come speak to entire group.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If you want an effective and meaningful interaction with the coaches, invite a local college coach (the higher the level, the better) to come speak to entire group.

Bo Ryan came and talked to our association many years ago. I think it was his first or second year at Wisconsin. My takeaway was that they wanted consistency at both ends of the floor. They adjust to the officiating and wanted to rely on same calls for similar plays. Nothing new or earth shattering but it was cool to get his perspective.

[JRutledge]

Well, we had a "kind of" coaches meeting at one of my associations on Tuesday. The problem is only one longtime coach who belongs to the officiating association show up. Every other coach that was asked canceled for some reason.

The best part was this particular coach was a long time head coach and AD and now an assistant coach after retiring from his last head coaching position. He is a great guy and gets it and is also the Executive Director of the Illinois Basketball Coaches Association. So he has a perspective of the entire game. He gave some great incite and unfortunately for him was the only voice, but was beneficial to us.

But this was a rare situation. Usually, the coaches have a bitch session about what officials do not do right or have expectations of what we should do that is not realistic (like communicating with us during games).

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have had coach's roundtables before where coaches come to a meeting and talk about their expectations or things they like to see official do. I personally see these as a waste of time.

Agree. We had one of these several years ago. One top-notch boys coach and one top-notch girls coach talked about what they expected from officials.

Originally Posted by Matt S.

... coaches want us to be able to communicate with them. They want to be heard ...

They pretty much spent twenty minutes talking about what Matt S. described above. All of us already knew that. What a waste of time.

The two invitees were state champions several times over, who always got along well with almost all officials (most of the great coaches do), seldom showing any unsporting behavior.

I would love to get a few 5W-15L coaches in a room (with the door locked) and have them explain to us, for the hundredth time (but this time with no technical fouls) how bad officials making bad calls cause them to not make the state tournament each season. Now that would be interesting.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

..


They pretty much spent twenty minutes talking about what Matt S. described above. All of us already knew that. What a waste of time.

...

Well, a D3 supervisor just spoke to our preseason rules group for over an hour about the importance of his officials being able to be effective communicators with coaches.

The week before a D1 head coach spoke to us for almost an hour and 90% of it was about official/coach communication.

So apparently, it is not something that is known to all officials, nor is there is a perception that officials as a whole are doing a good job of it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Well, a D3 supervisor just spoke to our preseason rules group for over an hour about the importance of his officials being able to be effective communicators with coaches.

The week before a D1 head coach spoke to us for almost an hour and 90% of it was about official/coach communication.

So apparently, it is not something that is known to all officials, nor is there is a perception that officials as a whole are doing a good job of it.

I would take that much different from a supervisor that has to deal with coaches and their overall complaints. Usually, the coach's overall complaints can be filtered or put into context. Supervisors often know who their coaches are or who has issues with them. Listening to a coach talk about communication can be taken with a grain of salt because we know that specific coach is not the most professional coach along.

For example, our Head Clinician for the IHSA is also a former D1 official and current NAIA supervisor of one of the top leagues in the country. We have a staff meeting that involves both the coaches and the officials that work for the league. Last year there was a coach that tried to make an issue (I cannot remember the specific issue) in that meeting about something an official said to him about a rule. Well, that coach is known by the officials and the supervisor to be a big jerk and our supervisor handled it very well. But when we talked afterward it was clear that this coach was being obstinant. So it was clear to not take him seriously. Supervisors know who their coaches are and often have to stand up to them when they get silly.

Peace

[SC Official]

The coaches that complain the loudest about officials not communicating are typically the whinier coaches who spend more time officiating the game than coaching (in my experience). There are coaches who want an explanation on every play or who want to spend the whole game talking to us, and when we don't fall into that trap they act like we are poor communicators. There are coaches who think that every time they get a T that it is a consequence of poor communication from the official. So while it's all well and good that communication is important to coaches (and officials), the reality is that our definition of what it means to be a good communicator from an official's standpoint is sometimes (often?) contradictory to what a coach's definition is.

[Matt S.]

SC Official nailed it:

"the reality is that our definition of what it means to be a good communicator from an official's standpoint is sometimes (often?) contradictory to what a coach's definition is"

[rockyroad]

The only time I ever thought anything like this was beneficial was at a camp one summer. And it was a round table type discussion with a couple coaches - a D-1 coach, a D-3 coach, and a HS coach (multi-state championships), and then 3 refs who were on staff at the camp. A question would be asked, and then any and all of them could respond. The questions were written down and submitted by campers the day before.

Some of the questions were about communication, etc...but some were about rules and game situations and the conversations got pretty interesting.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The coaches that complain the loudest about officials not communicating are typically the whinier coaches who spend more time officiating the game than coaching (in my experience). There are coaches who want an explanation on every play or who want to spend the whole game talking to us, and when we don't fall into that trap they act like we are poor communicators. There are coaches who think that every time they get a T that it is a consequence of poor communication from the official. So while it's all well and good that communication is important to coaches (and officials), the reality is that our definition of what it means to be a good communicator from an official's standpoint is sometimes (often?) contradictory to what a coach's definition is.

Well, in the case of the D3 supervisor, his asked the 12 HCs would they rather have an official who is a great communicator or an official who is a great play caller. By 11-1 the communicator won out.

We can poo-poo this all we want, but at the college level coaches do have influence with supervisors. If a veteran college supervisor (who is also used as a video observer for major conferences) feels it is important, I'm not going to act like I know better.

And, as some of you like to do, it doesn't mean a great communicator can be a crappy play-caller. What it means is that a great play-caller is going to suffer if he is a crappy communicator. And a 100% of the time when I hear discussions about veteran big-time officials whom I think are not that good, I find out that official has a great reputation for communicating and running a game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Well, in the case of the D3 supervisor, his asked the 12 HCs would they rather have an official who is a great communicator or an official who is a great play caller. By 11-1 the communicator won out.

We can poo-poo this all we want, but at the college level coaches do have influence with supervisors. If a veteran college supervisor (who is also used as a video observer for major conferences) feels it is important, I'm not going to act like I know better.

At the college level, I totally agree with you. At the high school level (at least in my area) I would disagree a little. High school coaches are a different animal. They tend to be less professional and often have less perspective on how to deal with officials. They tend to take things very personal or think that we have issues with them personally, instead of us just doing our job. College coaches have their jobs in the balance. They lose they lose their livelihood on many levels (or it has not changed totally). Not so much the case with high school coaches that if they lose their coaching position, they are still likely teachers. And in many cases here, you will not be hired as just a coach. You will have to work for the school district in order to coach.

Originally Posted by Raymond

And, as some of you like to do, it doesn't mean a great communicator can be a crappy play-caller. What it means is that a great play-caller is going to suffer if he is a crappy communicator. And a 100% of the time when I hear discussions about veteran big-time officials whom I think are not that good, I find out that official has a great reputation for communicating and running a game.

And even the big time officials just like everyone else has a coach or two that does not like them in a big way. You do have to be a good communicator, but you also have coaches that are held to a higher standard at the college level.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Well, in the case of the D3 supervisor, his asked the 12 HCs would they rather have an official who is a great communicator or an official who is a great play caller. By 11-1 the communicator won out.

We can poo-poo this all we want, but at the college level coaches do have influence with supervisors. If a veteran college supervisor (who is also used as a video observer for major conferences) feels it is important, I'm not going to act like I know better.

And, as some of you like to do, it doesn't mean a great communicator can be a crappy play-caller. What it means is that a great play-caller is going to suffer if he is a crappy communicator. And a 100% of the time when I hear discussions about veteran big-time officials whom I think are not that good, I find out that official has a great reputation for communicating and running a game.

I never said or implied that communication was not a big deal. Only that it may take on different meanings for coaches and officials. e.g. I am not going to spend my entire game talking to coaches like some officials (in high school and college) will, and the reality is that there are some coaches who take everything so personally, especially at the high school level, that they will think you are standoffish and/or a poor communicator in general if you're not willing to chit-chat at every opportunity.