You can't be serious

[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.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

I agree, this could be a problem. Where guys are independent, the fear of not getting a contract offer next season is also real.

If everyone just handled their business, neither would be an issue.

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

No kidding? There was an article on ESPN and some of the talking "empty" heads were up in arms that 4 of the super bowl officials live in SoCal.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by deecee

No kidding? There was an article on ESPN and some of the talking "empty" heads were up in arms that 4 of the super bowl officials live in SoCal.

And on CBS Sports. And Yahoo. And Deadspin. It was all over the place mid to late last week, and bias was the implication.

[BoomerSooner]

I’m pretty sure I saw that article on ESPN and I think the slant of the article was that while yes some people have latched onto the fact that 4 guys are from South California, the bigger issue is the perception problem the NFL created for itself. I think we can all agree that is an issue based on the countless threads about dealing with perception issues when taking assignments on our level. I’m not saying nobody anywhere has suggested bias or cheating. I’m just saying I haven’t seen anything widespread and I haven’t had an in person conversation with a single person that has made any such implication about the refs.

I’m not saying there aren’t some that have spewed conspiracy theories, but from my personal perspective, I haven’t heard or seen enough for me to immediately link that comment to an implication of cheating, bias, etc. Maybe I’m naive or not jaded or paranoid enough to go there, but I honestly didn’t when I read the OP. I asked my initial question because I honestly didn’t go there with my interpretation of the comment, but anyone on the other side of the spectrum on this can certainly issue a T as it’s a judgement situation.