You can't be serious

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

He'd be out of my game too. Reference to the Saints game would be a "knock it off" + official warning in the scorebook. "You can't be serious!" = T. "You can't be serious!" #2 = T #2 + ejection. If he persists, the game is over by forfeit.

I'm going straight to a technical in any game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm going straight to a technical in any game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agreed. The implication to me would be that I'm cheating or trying to affect the outcome. That's an automatic for me.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Agreed. The implication to me would be that I'm cheating or trying to affect the outcome. That's an automatic for me.

I'm curious as to why you arrive at the conclusion that the coach is implying the officials are cheating or trying to affect the outcome. I don't think the officials in the Saints/Rams game were cheating or trying to affect the outcome of the game, nor have I seen any serious attempts to suggest they were. The only thing close was the story about 4 of those officials living in Southern California, and even the article I read was more focused on the perception issue.

That said, my conclusion is that he's implying that calls are being missed (most would agree that is what happened in the Saints/Rams game) and/or he feels the officiating is poor. In either case, I don't immediately put this in the "automatic" category. Tone and body language are missing from the OP (and hard to convey via this medium anyway), so there is a chance this requires a T, but I'd actually lean toward a warning for the initial comment and follow that with the T when he loudly says, "You can't be serious". Based on the OP, I think the coach was trying to be humorous more than anything and think the OP handled the situation well.

[RefsNCoaches]

Appreciate all the feedback.

The league is well run and while there have been some real "gems" as coaches over the years, a lot of the guys volunteering their time to coach are guys that have come up through the lower level leagues into the middle school and HS leagues that they ask me to work each year. I guess there's a reason for that...

I am the longest tenured official in the league (and former board member) and fully understand what they want from their coaches. With that, I probably hand out more Ts than anyone else because of that and I am backed fully by the board, the individual league commissioners and the league president on my on court decisions. In all my years working and being not only an official but an extension of the board, they've never NOT backed a T or and ejection (there's been a few coaches, players and fans tossed)..

The comment about the Saints wasn't something directly said to me, as I was hearing the conversation with his other coach. Now I believe I know full well what he was referring too but I wasn't about to go fishing and again, it wasn't something that was overly demonstrative or heard by anyone outside the bench area and me as I was at T. Once he got loud , I gave the warning. He persisted so he got wacked.

I just found his comments after the T to be rather funny and I'll see him again this week and it will all be good. If not, we'll deal with any behavior accordingly. If the league feels the coach is out of line, they'll remove him from coaching. I don't see this guy being THAT dude.

[LRZ]

I will go straight to a T if a situation warrants, but I generally avoid "automatics" because they ignore context.

One remark that always bothers me is "call it both ways," as if I'm intentionally favoring one team over the other. It might elicit a "question my competence, not my integrity" kind of reply, an official warning or a T, depending on the circumstances.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I'm curious as to why you arrive at the conclusion that the coach is implying the officials are cheating or trying to affect the outcome. I don't think the officials in the Saints/Rams game were cheating or trying to affect the outcome of the game, nor have I seen any serious attempts to suggest they were. The only thing close was the story about 4 of those officials living in Southern California, and even the article I read was more focused on the perception issue.

That said, my conclusion is that he's implying that calls are being missed (most would agree that is what happened in the Saints/Rams game) and/or he feels the officiating is poor. In either case, I don't immediately put this in the "automatic" category. Tone and body language are missing from the OP (and hard to convey via this medium anyway), so there is a chance this requires a T, but I'd actually lean toward a warning for the initial comment and follow that with the T when he loudly says, "You can't be serious". Based on the OP, I think the coach was trying to be humorous more than anything and think the OP handled the situation well.

In "fan" speak which coaches fall into. The implication that "that's why the Saint's lost" because many people "believe" that the officials wanted the Rams to win and Saints to lose. This implies bias. This is the meaning behind saying this.

"This is why the other team is winning." = The refs are showing favoritism.

I have 0 patience for this BS and any official at any level that T's a coach up for this type of behavior, in my experience, is backed by their assignor. At this youth, play for fun, level it's different because there aren't any real expectations. But the meaning behind what was said is very clear.

I can see a coach trying to be humorous with saying things like this. But they usually say it to your face in a joking manner and it's framed with other content.

As a standalone it's a T in my book.

[Pantherdreams]

Coaches in our high school league have to complete some certification offered the the over seeing high school sports association including awareness of their mission, sportsmanship, etc. For whatever that means. No staff can be on the bench who has not completed that training.

We do not need to check for training but assume league and AD have done their diligence and no one down as a coach or staff does not have it.

If anyone gets ejected only coaches on sheet and/other bench staff can replace them. If no such adult exists game is forfeited.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Coaches in our high school league have to complete some certification offered the the over seeing high school sports association including awareness of their mission, sportsmanship, etc. For whatever that means. No staff can be on the bench who has not completed that training.

Same thing here in Connecticut for non-certified teachers: eighteen years old, high school graduate, criminal background check, forty-five hour hour course, Sports Psychology, Care and Prevention of Athletic Injuries, Legal Aspect of Coaching, Management Styles, Interpersonal Skills, Physical Conditioning, Practice Design, CIAC Eligibility Rules, CIAC Out Of Season Rules, CIAC Chemical Health Policy, Revocation, Harassment and Hazing, Appropriate Use Of Electronic (Social) Media, Dealing With Parents Of Athletes, Impact Of Ethical Standards On Youth. Cost is $375 and one needs to additionally take concussion protocol, first aid, and CPR. Renewed every five years (fifteen hour class renewal, $100), plus concussion protocol, first aid, and CPR renewal. Even certified teachers have to take the concussion protocol, first aid, and CPR training periodically.

Certainly a lot of hoops to jump through.

Which is why I was surprised when our state high school sports governing body recently came up with: can't be a student, must "look like they're at least eighteen".

Possibly an immediate knee jerk reaction to very recent problems, perhaps they will come up with a more formal guideline in the future.

I'm also surprised that this hasn't come up previously in Connecticut.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

In "fan" speak which coaches fall into. The implication that "that's why the Saint's lost" because many people "believe" that the officials wanted the Rams to win and Saints to lose. This implies bias. This is the meaning behind saying this.



"This is why the other team is winning." = The refs are showing favoritism.



I have 0 patience for this BS and any official at any level that T's a coach up for this type of behavior, in my experience, is backed by their assignor. At this youth, play for fun, level it's different because there aren't any real expectations. But the meaning behind what was said is very clear.



I can see a coach trying to be humorous with saying things like this. But they usually say it to your face in a joking manner and it's framed with other content.



As a standalone it's a T in my book.

Exactly. In a HS game I'm chuckling as I'm whacking the coach. Cause he should know it's coming. I got the Seahawks line the season of the Fail Mary and the coach got whacked and sat without saying a word.

In a rec game? Please. We're shooting FTs (or awarding 2 and the ball) before the coach knows what hit him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[CJP]

Call more Technicals. They are a part of the game. We need to make them less "Taboo".

I see too many officials take too much crap. Especially in sub-varsity games.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by CJP

Call more Technicals. They are a part of the game. We need to make them less "Taboo".

I see too many officials take too much crap. Especially in sub-varsity games.

That would be great if all assigners would stand behind their officials instead of kowtowing to coaches. Too many assigners run their operation in fear of losing their job and assume something wasn't handled properly when a coach gets whacked.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by deecee

In "fan" speak which coaches fall into. The implication that "that's why the Saint's lost" because many people "believe" that the officials wanted the Rams to win and Saints to lose. This implies bias. This is the meaning behind saying this.

"This is why the other team is winning." = The refs are showing favoritism.

I have 0 patience for this BS and any official at any level that T's a coach up for this type of behavior, in my experience, is backed by their assignor. At this youth, play for fun, level it's different because there aren't any real expectations. But the meaning behind what was said is very clear.

I can see a coach trying to be humorous with saying things like this. But they usually say it to your face in a joking manner and it's framed with other content.

As a standalone it's a T in my book.

I 100% agree with you on a T if you believe the comment was intended to imply bias, favoritism, cheating, etc. I guess my difference comes from having had several discussions with a variety of people and not once have those issues been suggested. Most discussions I’ve had start with shock that a call like that could be missed and several eventually led to the refs being called clueless or incompetent but I can’t recall one conversation about it being fixed, cheating, bias, etc.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I 100% agree with you on a T if you believe the comment was intended to imply bias, favoritism, cheating, etc. I guess my difference comes from having had several discussions with a variety of people and not once have those issues been suggested. Most discussions I’ve had start with shock that a call like that could be missed and several eventually led to the refs being called clueless or incompetent but I can’t recall one conversation about it being fixed, cheating, bias, etc.

You've never heard "you're costing us the game." or "He/they are out to get us." or my favorite "It's 7 on 5 today."

After 15ish years I've heard it all, until I hear the NEXT absurd thing that is.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by deecee

You've never heard "you're costing us the game." or "He/they are out to get us." or my favorite "It's 7 on 5 today."

After 15ish years I've heard it all, until I hear the NEXT absurd thing that is.

I’ve heard it but not in reference to the Saints game, which is my point. If there were widespread speculation that the refs were cheating or on the take or something like that, then I could see that undoubtedly being the implication.

[BillyMac]

At our Sunday local board meeting we spent some time discussing the ejection of a team's only coach (i.e., no assistants), usually in a middle school game, or a freshman game. As a result of some state-wide problems, our state high school sports governing body now has some guidelines in place.

Only coach is ejected. This ejected coach now has fifteen minutes to replace himself with a non-student over the age of eighteen. It is not the officials responsibility to ask for any certification proof, we don't even ask. No replacement after fifteen minutes leads a forfeit by the team without a coach, even if they are leading in the game.