Coaches & Officials Meeting

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

... but some were about rules and game situations and the conversations got pretty interesting.

We have an annual new rules meeting for coaches that is run by our local interpreter, with a few of his assistants (officials in a non leadership roles aren't invited). It's not a time to spout off about bad officiating, or poor communicating, but rather, a time for coaches to ask rule based questions. This meeting goes over quite well. I wish that it were better attended.

[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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.



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

I definitely wouldn't put HS coaches in the same category as college coaches when it comes to professionalism, but I will be using HS coaches as Guinea pigs for self-improvement.

I am an official who falls into the "good play-caller" category, and I know I can be a hard-a$$ when provoked. What was interesting about the D1 coach was that he acknowledged that he can be a pain-in-the-a$$, but he said he has great respect for those officials who know how to diffuse those situations without turning them ugly. In fact, he said he would rather get a technical foul than have an official say something nasty or unprofessional to him. That hit home for me because I rarely T up coaches, but I often engage in combative conversations with knucklehead coaches.

Between what the D3 supervisor and D1 coach shared with us, I am personally dedicating myself to finding new techniques to communicate with hard-to-deal-with coaches.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I definitely wouldn't put HS coaches in the same category as college coaches when it comes to professionalism, but I will be using HS coaches as Guinea pigs for self-improvement.

That is the main benefit I get working with high school coaches. I learn what not to say most of the time because saying something that is "real" often does not work. College coaches are easy to deal with compared to most high school coaches because college coaches would never dare do certain things as a norm and expect a different response.

Originally Posted by Raymond

I am an official who falls into the "good play-caller" category, and I know I can be a hard-a$$ when provoked. What was interesting about the D1 coach was that he acknowledged that he can be a pain-in-the-a$$, but he said he has great respect for those officials who know how to diffuse those situations without turning them ugly. In fact, he said he would rather get a technical foul than have an official say something nasty or unprofessional to him. That hit home for me because I rarely T up coaches, but I often engage in combative conversations with knucklehead coaches.

Between what the D3 supervisor and D1 coach shared with us, I am personally dedicating myself to finding new techniques to communicate with hard-to-deal-with coaches.

I am a great communicator IMO when I am dealing with thicker-skinned coaches or coaches that take things in stride. When I am dealing with guys that have a stick up their behind when you actually answer their question, I am not that good with them. Because I feel I am a grown ass man and I am going to talk to people as if they are adults. I am not going to lie to them or try to give them some line so they leave me alone. And I am going to speak when I have time to speak. Much of the time in a basketball game, I have not much time to speak. College coaches at least understand reasonableness when you are trying to give them information. At least that is the case in my experience. Rarely do I even have to come close to giving a T in a college game. I do not give many in high school games, but I have to think about it more often for sure.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.



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

Jeff:

I could not agree with you more on the general differences between boys'/girls' H.S. basketball coaches and men's college basketball coaches.

Women's college basketball coaches is altogether different. Male coaches are like men's college coaches, and female coaches are like boys'/girls' coaches.

The thing that I would like all to remember is that what you and I agree on are generalizations. Not all H.S. and female women's college coaches are pains in the tuchus.

MTD, Sr.

[Pantherdreams]

I have been part of many of these meetings, where officials are invited or brought into coaches meetings. Pretty standard fair around these parts. IME

* Coaches at these meetings want info re POints of Emphasis and balls and strikes type stuff.
* HS coaches do not care and are often put off if we want to talk about protocol or fashion police type items. They want us in the room to find out or ask questions about how game will be called. They see the rest as officials issues or. Administrative stuff that is not their domain.
* Meetings go better when speaking officials gives 2-3 clear points and explanations and ask for questions re those points. Long sit and get type sessions or open forums can become problematic.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

Totally agree. Just looked at an email that was about a situation with an incident that I had with a coach (he was T'd up by my partner) some two seasons ago. He was given a T and wanted to continuously relitigate the issue with me during the game and I refused. I was trying to keep him in the game and told him as such. He took it personally and basically cursed us off the court and threatened me with the, "You will never work here again.....blah...blah....blah." Well, I worked there the very next season with the same official that gave him a T (a legend in our area) and we had no incident at all in the next game. BTW, that coach has been fired. I am not sure they won 5 games in the last two seasons. If I had listened to the coach, I would have communicated with him and likely he would have said something that would have got him ejected from that game. I was trying to just officiate a blowout and get out with as little strife as possible. I was not going to win by more communication because the communication we did previously obviously did not work.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

Being a good communicator does not mean chatting all game. And the D1 coach and D3 supervisor both said as much. The D1 coach said there's needs to be a point where an official says, in a professional manner, that enough is enough. And when that warning isn't heeded, then you popped the coach with a T.

But let's not pretend there aren't officials out there, HS and college, who don't come into games with the attitude that they are not going to have any communication with the coaches, because there are.