You can't be serious
 

Working my youth league over the weekend (I've been with this league 19 season...was on their board of directors for about 6 years...good league, good board and for the most part, coaches "get it")...

They have a code of conduct form that coaches, players and parents must sign....now that and a paperclip will get you a nice paper airplane but...at least they are trying...

So newer coach in the league got a warning after some comments about calls during the 4th quarter...

One of his comments while I was in front of his bench at T position was "This is how the Saint's lost", talking to his assistant coach but I knew what he was referring to......and then on the very next play at his end of the floor L had a no call in the lane and he says, "You can't be serious!!!???"

Given what the league wants...and the comment was loud enough to be heard by more than just me in front of the bench....I hit the whistle and issued a warning to him and he proceeds to say again, "But you can't be serious, ref?" pretty loudly and passionately..., so I T'd him up.

As I turned to report...He says "I guess he was serious" and he just sat down.... :p

No more complaints.

WHACK!

My God, there it is. Just whack him already!

At least he didn't call you Shirley! :p

MTD, Sr.

That would have been the easiest ejection for me.

Peace

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.

Only if the league-specific rules allow it.

Don't leagues default to NFHS rules on those issues? If a coach is ejected, yet refuses to leave, the game cannot continue while he is still present within the visual confines of the playing area. Either that coach is forcibly removed from the facility, he leaves on his own, or an assistant takes over, but I am not allowing a game to continue with an ejected coach present. For me forfeit is a nuclear option, but one that will be used if the situation warrants it.

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.

Only In Connecticut ...
 

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.

15 minutes? That, IMHO, is insane. The other team has to sit around for 15 minutes because the coach is a %#$%. Just like the time for a fouled out player, giving them 15 minutes to do this means that some of those knuckleheads will take the full 15 just because they can.

IMHO, there should either be an assistant coach on the books at the start of the game or not. If not, too bad. That's the school's fault, not the refs'. Game over.

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.

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.

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.

Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference ...
 

Not my call. Guidelines are from the CIAC, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, our state high school sports governing body.

99.9% of the time this will only be utilized in middle school games and freshman games.

so cal lurker: What are the written guidelines in your state/conference/league/association, etc. (I'm assuming California)?

Forum members: What are the written guidelines in your state/conference/league/association, etc.?

Dickhead Coach ...
 

If he continues to be a dickhead, I've got another rule to pull out of my black tool belt that will take care of matters.

5-4-1: The referee shall forfeit the game if a team refuses to play after
being instructed to do so by any official. The referee may also forfeit a
game if any player, team member, bench personnel or coach fails to comply
with any technical-foul penalty, or repeatedly commits technical-foul
infractions or other acts which make a travesty of the game. If the team to
which the game is forfeited is ahead, the score at the time of forfeiture shall
stand. If this team is not ahead, the score shall be recorded as 2-0 in its
favor.

If they adopt adopt a stupid rule that says they get 15 minutes, you can't forfeit the game because you take affront that he is taking that amount of time to designate his replacement.

I don't ref basketball, so I have no idea what the ground rules are around here for coach ejections without an assistant coach. My opinion on what the rule should be is simply my opinion. IF the school/team wants someone to be able to take over, IMHO, that person should be named as an assistant coach before the game. If they don't do that, it's on the team, not the ref.

(The local AYSO Area has a rule that if any coach is tossed the game is over and a forfeit--the only reason I wouldn't support that for all jr high games is that some refs just become reluctant to toss the coach if they have to abandon the game, too.)

It's For The Kids ...
 

The CIAC, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, our state high school sports governing body, consists of both active and retired school superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and athletic directors that often make decisions with input of our Connecticut IAABO State Interpreter.

This learned group of educators probably figures that canceling an extracurricular school activity involving two teams of student athletes (one team traveling by expensive bus, that already left to return later in the afternoon for pickup), student athlete cheerleaders, student athlete fans, paid officials, and parents, due to the behavior of one adult who lost his temper and said the wrong word to an official, possibly in the first minute of a game, may not be the best educational plan for all involved. Why punish the many for the mortal sin of one? Why not give the coach (as long as he's not being a dickhead) some time to get a teacher, administrator, parent, police officer in the corner, custodian, or even the other team's assistant coach, to coach, thus allowing the completion of this educationally valuable extracurricular school activity? Isn't that preferable to sending everybody home and turning off the lights in the gym? When ten or fifteen minutes of time can possibly solve a problem?

When David saw the angel striking the people, he said to the Lord, “Look, I am the one who has sinned; I am the one who has done wrong. But these sheep, what have they done? Please, let Your hand be against me. (2 Samuel 24:17)

Clearances?
 

A tangential twist to this issue: if coaches need clearances, must the "coach out of the stands" be cleared? And if so, who checks? If he/she doesn't have clearances, then what?

There was a case where a game did not have a full crew of referees. A cop, who is a DARE contact in the township's high school, is a referee, but HR said his clearances were not on file, so he could not work the game. I may have missed some of the nuances or details of the case, but that's the gist.

Don't know, don't care.

Nobody Does It Half As Good As You (Carly Simon, The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977) ...
 

Just trying to show so cal lurker that the Connecticut guidelines may not be perfect, but at least we (now) have some guidelines that other states may not have at all. Or that Connecticut guidelines stink, and other states do it much better.

Legal Liability ...
 

This was the final piece of the puzzle, asked for by my local board. According to the CIAC, the substitute coach doesn't have to have state certification (usually all nonteaching coaches in the state have to have a state issued coaching certificate), so we don't have to ask; can't be a student; must "look like they're at least eighteen" (exact CIAC words).

Ever since I've been officiating we've been strongly warned not to ever officiate with anybody who is not IAABO certified (Connecticut is 100% IAABO for high school basketball, but there are a few recreation level non-IAABO officials out there with Foot Locker jerseys), even if it means working a one person game (which is allowed in Connecticut, we even have written mechanics guidelines in place). I've been told that it's for legal liability reasons.

Of course, the usual caveat, when in Rome ...

How could a police officer not have his clearances on file? AFAIK, PA officials have to have a background check from the police department, so I would be surprised that a police officer would not have a police background check done on him every year. Or maybe it is just the PIAA misplacing his records (he is a member of a PIAA chapter in good standing?).

Officials file their clearances with the central PIAA office, but schools here want them sent directly, rather than having to access them on-line through the PIAA website, and some school district HR departments are OOO.

When we are assigned a game at a school for the first time, we email our clearances to the AD, athletic department secretary, and everyone listed on arbiter as a school contact. We then hope that they get to and are accepted by the school district's HR office.

The officer is indeed in good standing, and an excellent official. I'm speculating that he never submitted his paperwork to that school because he would likely never get assigned there because of working in that township and going to the school as the DARE officer.

Michigan's Rule:

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.

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.

Certification ...
 

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.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cart...cn2240_low.jpg

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

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.

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.

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.

At this point one of 2 things happens

- If coach has otherwise conducted himself decently: "OK Coach, you got away with the Rams/Saints statement, but now I'm not tolerating anymore of that kind of talk".

- If coach is typically a d!ck: I'm issuing a book warning (or in a college game, telling my partners this coach has been warned).

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.

You Can't Be Serious ...
 

It took me two days, but I finally got it.

Never thought to look at the title.

Now, where are my reading glasses?

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.

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.