Coaches Behavior

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Some of us know our assignors well enough to know their philosophies and expectations.

Unless I hear from an assignor, I will not take anyone's word who speaks on their behalf. So far, one assignor has spoken up on this thread.

Originally Posted by Raymond

supervisors, at times, back officials publicly while admonishing them privately.

These types of people should not be in charge of anything.

This dead horse has been beat enough. Have a great day.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by CJP

These types of people should not be in charge of anything.

Why? Would you suggest that assigners throw their officials under the bus to administrators and coaches as an alternative?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Why? Would you suggest that assigners throw their officials under the bus to administrators and coaches as an alternative?

Two way honesty is not throwing someone under the bus.

Assigners hire oficials but work for administrators in many places. Not being transparent and honest isn't the right way to do business.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

Two way honesty is not throwing someone under the bus.

Assigners hire oficials but work for administrators in many places. Not being transparent and honest isn't the right way to do business.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

An official can be technically correct in how they handled a situation, but it may not have been the best way in the eyes of the assignor. An official may have suggested to game admin to have a spectator removed. An assignor can back that official's decision to conference administrator while at the same time telling his official that in the future it would be best to ignore such a fan.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

An official can be technically correct in how they handled a situation, but it may not have been the best way in the eyes of the assignor. An official may have suggested to game admin to have a spectator removed. An assignor can back that official's decision to conference administrator while at the same time telling his official that in the future it would be best to ignore such a fan.

I don't disagree with this.

But if I'm sent a video and asked about a play or a sequence and the official was obviously wrong, I'll say so. For me to do otherwise would dilute the message I send when the official is right.

Of course the communication is all done professionally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't disagree with this.

But if I'm sent a video and asked about a play or a sequence and the official was obviously wrong, I'll say so. For me to do otherwise would dilute the message I send when the official is right.

Of course the communication is all done professionally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Oh yeah, definitely agree when it comes to play-calling and on court situations.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Raymond

An official can be technically correct in how they handled a situation, but it may not have been the best way in the eyes of the assignor. An official may have suggested to game admin to have a spectator removed. An assignor can back that official's decision to conference administrator while at the same time telling his official that in the future it would be best to ignore such a fan.

Exactly. And very similar to the situation I provided as an example.

People can offer all sorts of platitudes about who they think should be in charge of whatever but its a fact of life that people in charge of things at various levels externally communicate things one way, while internally having a more pointed message to the individuals involved.

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't disagree with this.

But if I'm sent a video and asked about a play or a sequence and the official was obviously wrong, I'll say so. For me to do otherwise would dilute the message I send when the official is right.

Of course the communication is all done professionally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I don't see where anyone has suggested otherwise.

As Raymond noted there is a difference between plays, on the court sequences, rules administration, etc. and something like engaging a fan.

One can be transparent and still communicate slightly different messages to different audiences.

In the situation similar to what I described it does no good for an assigner to tell an administrator, "this guy is a loose cannon, I told him if he ever pulls that crap again he will never work another game for me."

Rather, he can say something like, "I have spoken with my official about the need to handle such situations through game management. Please make sure that in the future, clear protocols are in place to discourage and address fans making personal comments to game officials."

Privately to the official he may say, "please don't be stupid. If a fan makes a dumb comment like that without any further action just ignore it or report it to game management. This is not the first time we've discussed something like this so don't do that again if you want to continue working games in this board."

This is not a lack of transparency. Its professionally handling a situation with both external and internal audiences.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Rich

Two way honesty is not throwing someone under the bus.

Assigners hire oficials but work for administrators in many places. Not being transparent and honest isn't the right way to do business.

So you are saying that if you didn't like the way one of your officials handled something, even if it was "technically" correct, you would tell the administrator and the official that you didn't like the way it was handled?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CJP

Unless I hear from an assignor, I will not take anyone's word who speaks on their behalf. So far, one assignor has spoken up on this thread.



These types of people should not be in charge of anything.

...

Those kinds of people are in charge of many things, and successfully so.

And it doesn't matter whose word you're willing to accept. What you believe has zero effect on anybody's else relationship with their assignor(s).