The effect of a technical foul on a coach

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Instead of asking "what could we have done differently?" or "did it fit?" every time a T is issued, maybe just admit that the coach's reaction was disproportionate with the actual or perceived slight.

Yes that does happen..There is a sense of doubt and a putting an official on the spot with those type of questions out of the gate

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I officiated boys'/girls H.S. in Miami, Florida, from 1973 to 1977, and the OP that started this thread reminded me of three boys' JV games that I had during the 1973-74 season, all of them at Miami Beach H.S. The M.B.H.S. JV-HC was involved in all three TFs, and I do not remember who won those three games.

The first game: The JV-HC started chipping at my partner and I from the moment the ball left my hands for the opening JB. It was non-stop until I finally WHACKED him about 2/3's of the way through the 3rd QT. After that we did not hear a peep from him the rest of the game.

The second game: Same as the first game but I decided that I had heard enough and WHACKED him mid way through the 2nd QT. Quiet as a church mouse after that.

The third game: Same as the first and second games, but decided to WHACK him about 90 seconds into the 1st QT. Quiet as a church mouse after that.

I had come to the conclusion that he had a persecution complex and needed the TFs for validation. I had him a couple of more times of the next three years but I guess he knew enough to not do any whining in my games.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

For many years now, the Connecticut interscholastic sports governing body has required referees (not umpires) to file paperwork for any ejection of a coach (one flagrant, two directs, three indirects), which leads to a one game suspension.

This year, my local board (not sure about the other little corners in Connecticut) has instituted a new policy. Any unsporting technical foul given to any coach (head, assistant, varsity, junior varsity, freshman, middle school) will be reported (with minimum paperwork) to our assignment commissioner. If he sees a pattern of poor behavior in a particular coach, he will report such behavior to the school's athletic director and/or principal.

It turns out that athletic directors and principals want to be informed of such poor behavior, especially for coaches in road games, when the athletic director and/or principal may not be physically present to observe such behavior. Athletic directors and principals may use such information for promotions/demotions, and contract renewals. Even coaches who are teachers (and belong to a teacher's union) are all on one year renewable contracts and can be "non-renewed" for cause.

This new policy is mainly aimed at inexperienced subvarsity coaches who tend to abuse inexperienced subvarsity officials, staying under the radar by getting their "licks" in while avoiding game ejections.

[billyu2]

I know coaches who are convinced after they get whacked they start getting more calls going their way.

[so cal lurker]

It must be true—every coach knows that!

There was a study done (I think it was the Israeli Airforce, but not sure) about the effects of screaming at pilots after they had a poor exercise. The trainers pointed to the fact that the pilot yelled at after a poor performance usually did better his next effort—proof that the abuse was effective. Alas, statistical analysis of the performances showed that the supposed performance could be explained by simply regression to the mean—anyone is more likely to have an average performance than a poor performance; the poor performance set a low bar for the next exercise. Add confirmation bias to the mix, and it easy to understand why they trainers believed the yelling was effective.

I think there is something similar with the coaches. Often coaches get unglued when a series of calls go against them. Regression to the mean suggests that will end. When it does, it “confirms” that the yelling worked—even when totally unrelated.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by billyu2

I know coaches who are convinced after they get whacked they start getting more calls going their way.

I’ve heard someone say that your first foul call after a coach T should be against his team so the other coach doesn’t think he misbehaved his way into getting calls.

I’ve also heard it said that your first foul call after a coach T should be against his opponent so that he doesn’t think he’s getting screwed.

And then there’s the philosophy I use: just call what I see.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

For many years now, the Connecticut interscholastic sports governing body has required referees (not umpires) to file paperwork for any ejection of a coach (one flagrant, two directs, three indirects), which leads to a one game suspension.

This year, my local board (not sure about the other little corners in Connecticut) has instituted a new policy. Any unsporting technical foul given to any coach (head, assistant, varsity, junior varsity, freshman, middle school) will be reported (with minimum paperwork) to our assignment commissioner. If he sees a pattern of poor behavior in a particular coach, he will report such behavior to the school's athletic director and/or principal.

It turns out that athletic directors and principals want to be informed of such poor behavior, especially for coaches in road games, when the athletic director and/or principal may not be physically present to observe such behavior. Athletic directors and principals may use such information for promotions/demotions, and contract renewals. Even coaches who are teachers (and belong to a teacher's union) are all on one year renewable contracts and can be "non-renewed" for cause.

This new policy is mainly aimed at inexperienced subvarsity coaches who tend to abuse inexperienced subvarsity officials, staying under the radar by getting their "licks" in while avoiding game ejections.

Locally we’ve moved to a similar rule. Tracking all techs through conferences and suspensions being tied excessive numbers. I know the intent of the rule is to protect officials but the letter of rule and reality make it nonsensical. T can be for i sporting behaviour, but also delay of game, uniform or book errors. All techs recorded for purpose of rule silly. Also assumes all Ts even for unsportin* are equal. I work in zones where it is expected coaches jump up and down and complain and unless they say the magic words you give them rope, I also work with partners and in zones who t guys up for moving outside the coaching box once or coaching loudly while the other team shoots free throws.

As others have said we should be calling more ts but until a T is a T. Tracking and uniformly recording them makes little sense.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Tracking and uniformly recording them makes little sense.

For all technical fouls listed on a spread sheet leading to suspensions? Sure.

We're including the human element here. Officials only report unsporting (not an illegal uniform) technical fouls, including a brief description of the situation. Our assignment commissioner looks for patterns of unsporting behavior. If circumstances merit it, he will report such patterns (no predetermined limit, but three reports for one school may merit some attention) of unsporting behavior to the athletic director and/or principal (the state and/or conference/league is not involved). There are no predetermined consequences, suspensions, etc. Some athletic directors and/or principals may just toss such a report aside. But many athletic directors and/or principals may sit down with said coach and have a heart to heart discussion with the coach. And then there are a few athletic directors and/or principals out there who are just waiting for such "ammunition" to non-renew the coaches one year renewable contract.