The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Its Got No Teeth ... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105519-its-got-no-teeth.html)

JRutledge Thu Oct 07, 2021 09:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1045059)
Going by nothing but common sense, it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it."

Still going by common sense, if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is. Because you can emphasize some things only at the expense of attention to others. As magicians know, attention is a limited resource, and if you tell someone to focus on X, they have to take at least some focus off Y. Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration.

Not being a reader of Fed basketball rules, what I gather from reading here is that Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations. (This may be specific to some sports, as I haven't seen such abuse in football.) You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.
I do not think POEs are about just the officials. POEs are about everyone involved in the game. Many things are because coaches complain about things and are not aware of the actual rules. I see officials call many things that are pointed out before a POE comes out, but the reality is that coaches complain or suggest the rule is something else. Even the traveling POE this year I am sure is because there are officials that actually call these things properly, but get a lot of blowbacks. Look at what the NCAA did about traveling? They basically said not to call things that are not egregious, even though there were officials properly calling travels, but when they did, the coaches and players would act like "That is a good move" or say, "He gets 2 and a half steps" which is not the rule. So the POE is to deal with what is often misunderstood, not what officials are necessarily doing. Because they almost never reference what officials are not calling, they focus on the rule or the way they wish it to be addressed. Similar to the timeout acknowledgment and even put in the POE, "Coaches have to understand that official's focus is not on them requesting a timeout" or something to that effect.

Peace

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 09:16am
Neglecting ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1045059)
... it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it." ... if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is ... Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration ... Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations ... You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.
Agree. Extremely well written. Especially when the "interpretation" from an old one and done POE can't be found in the most current book.

Many times the same POE is resurrected by the NFHS, sometimes more than twice, meaning that the NFHS considers that an issue continues to be neglected.

I believe it was JRutledge who posted earlier that the NFHS should not be using POE to introduce new rules, or new interpretations, and I agree with him.

Yet the NFHS still occasionally does it, and it often leads to lively debate for the rule "watchers" here on the Forum.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 09:22am
Stakeholders ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1045060)
I do not think POEs are about just the officials.
Great statement. POE are for all the stakeholders in the game. Sometimes it's the coaches, athletic directors, table personnel, cheerleading coach, pep band director, etc., who are neglecting an issue, or not properly teaching an issue.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 09:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1045059)
Going by nothing but common sense, it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it."

Still going by common sense, if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is. Because you can emphasize some things only at the expense of attention to others. As magicians know, attention is a limited resource, and if you tell someone to focus on X, they have to take at least some focus off Y. Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration.

Not being a reader of Fed basketball rules, what I gather from reading here is that Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations. (This may be specific to some sports, as I haven't seen such abuse in football.) You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.

I think you're pretty much spot on. I've had many occasions, especially at the college level, where a coach thinks we missed a called and the will add "that's a POE". They are not talking about 2010 or 2015. I think the NFHS is sloppy when it comes to rules, and giving an interpretation and publishing it as a POE is but one example.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:48am
Waht'cha Call Experts ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045064)
I've had many occasions, especially at the college level, where a coach thinks we missed a called and the will add "that's a POE".
Same here on the high school level. They attend one preseason coaches presentation and they suddenly think that they're rule experts, when, of course, they usually have absolutely no concept regarding the nuances and subtle aspects of the POE.

Sometimes, when I'm sitting at my first local meeting of the season, going over that year's new POE, I can often predict what the coaches will hear, and more importantly, not hear, thinking to myself, "Oh no, we'll be hearing about this from coaches all season long".

Our local interpreter can't use the same preseason presentation for the coaches as he does for officials. Two different audiences, two different presentations.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045067)
Same here on the high school level. They attend one preseason coaches presentation and they suddenly think that they're rule experts, when, of course, they have absolutely no concept regarding the nuances and subtle aspects of the POE.

Sometimes, when I'm sitting at my first local meeting of the season, going over that year's new POE, I can often predict what the coaches will hear, and more importantly, not hear, thinking to myself, "Oh no, we'll be hearing about this from coaches all season long".

Our local interpreter can't use the same preseason presentation (Power Point, etc.) for the coaches as he does for officials. Two different audiences, two different presentations.
I have no problem at all with a coach pointing out that something is a point of emphasis for that season.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:19am
Mr. Irrelevant ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045069)
I have no problem at all with a coach pointing out that something is a point of emphasis for that season.
But we often hear these comments during irrelevant plays.

"Coach, that's not what the POE actually says."

"Coach, that was a moving opponent, time and distance DO apply."

Etcetera.

Coaches hear what they want to hear, and cherry pick to their own benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045067)
... they have absolutely no concept regarding the nuances and subtle aspects of the POE ... what the coaches will hear, and more importantly, not hear ...
I'm not saying that all coaches are "rule challenged", but many are.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045070)
But we often hear these comments during irrelevant plays.

"Coach, that's not what the POE actually says."

"Coach, that was a BLIND screen, time and distance apply."

Etcetera.

Coaches hear what they want to hear, and cherry pick to their own benefit.



I'm not saying that all coaches are "rule challenged", but many are.

I'm not talking about all those what-ifs. My point stands that coaches are aware of the POEs for each particular season.

POEs are for coaches and players, just as much as officials. I want them seeing the same training videos, slides, and examples that we see. That way we are all seeing and hearing the same message. I definitely don't want to hear coaches saying "well, in the clinic we received...." because I would have no idea if they are being truthful or accurate.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:42am
Differences ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045073)
I want them seeing the same training videos, slides, and examples that we see.
Officials know the full background (past rules and interpretations) of all new rule changes and POE. Coaches often don't. Officials fully understand the philosophy of purpose and intent, and advantage disadvantage. Coaches tend to be more literal. Coaches tend to cherry pick, hearing what they want to hear. Officials see the big picture. Coaches often attend these preseason meetings reluctantly, under duress, somebody made them come. Officials often attend these preseason meetings reluctantly, under duress, somebody made them come.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045067)
Two different audiences, two different presentations.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:57am
Irrelevant Play ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045073)
My point stands that coaches are aware of the POEs for each particular season.
And I'll stand with you, with emphasis (no pun intended) on the word "aware", which doesn't imply a completely full understanding.

Note: Locally, schools have to send one coach to the preseason meeting, sometimes the short straw is pulled by the freshman coach, and information doesn't always get accurately (if at all) moved up the ladder.

http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post...sip-495842.png

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045070)
But we often hear these comments during irrelevant plays.
And I stand by my statement. Over forty years, for the number of times I've heard a coach correctly complain about a point of emphasis for a relevant play, I've heard an almost equal number of coaches incorrectly complain about a point of emphasis for a irrelevant play.

And, certainly not very numerous, but I have heard coaches complain by mentioning a past (not distant past) point of emphasis , "Hey BillyMac, wasn't that a point of emphasis a few years ago?".

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=300&h=300

JRutledge Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:11pm
Why are we worried about what a coach thinks is a POE?

I ask this because yes coaches point them out sometimes, but many are unaware that was even mentioned or in the rules book or an interpretation. Are we officiating differently because they are aware or not aware of them? No!!! At least I am not.

Coaches have an agenda when they tell us stuff. It can often be wrong, but not all the time, but often wrong.

Had a coach one time try to get me to call a goaltending call because the POE that year was about slapping the backboard and the last relevant time I can remember when a coach mentioning the POE of that year. He was totally wrong and it was a month or so into the season that year.

Use your skill to explain or not explain these things to a coach. But I am not going to tell them something I am not aware of in some position that has never been openly discussed.

Peace

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045075)
And I'll stand with you, with emphasis (no pun intended) on the word "aware", which doesn't imply a completely full understanding.

Note: Locally, schools have to send one coach to the preseason meeting, sometimes the short straw is pulled by the freshman coach, and information doesn't always get accurately (if at all) moved up the ladder.


And I stand by my statement. Over forty years, for the number of times I've heard a coach correctly complain about a point of emphasis for a relevant play, I've heard an almost equal number of coaches incorrectly complain about a point of emphasis for a irrelevant play.

And, certainly not very numerous, but I have heard coaches complain by mentioning a past (not distant past) point of emphasis , "Hey BillyMac, wasn't that a point of emphasis a few years ago?".
Your view is very limited to a small corner of Connecticut. I apparently officiate coaches with a higher basketball IQ. I have definitely officiated a lot more localities and levels than you have.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045074)
Officials know the full background (past rules and interpretations) of all new rule changes and POE. Coaches often don't. Officials fully understand the philosophy of purpose and intent, and advantage disadvantage. Coaches tend to be more literal. Coaches cherry pick, hearing what they want to hear. Officials see the big picture. Coaches often attend these preseason meetings reluctantly, under duress, somebody made them come. Officials often attend these preseason meetings reluctantly, under duress, somebody made them come.
Again, if we are seeing the same materials all those what-ifs are moot. If you want coaches to get different material, go for it. Good luck in trying to figure out if they got the same message as you.

Your bolded statement is a huge assumption that is not true for most HS officials. Just b/c you're a history buff who thinks knowing a timeline of a rule is essential to enforcing the rule doesn't mean that's how others think or approach their rules knowledge.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:27pm
Worried ??? Who's Worried ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1045076)
Why are we worried about what a coach thinks is a POE? Are we officiating differently because they are aware or not aware of them? No!!! ... Had a coach one time try to get me to call a goaltending call because the POE that year was about slapping the backboard ... Use your skill to explain or not explain these things to a coach.
Nice post JRutledge.

Officiate differently? No. Agree.

Why are we worried? Worried may be too strong a word. The issue is that coaches often misunderstanding rule changes or points of emphases can spark "irritating" conversations.

Sounds like JRutledge was able to use his excellent game management skills to "defuse" his goaltending conversation, but it would have been nice if it never happened (don't know how to achieve that, can't live with coaches preseason meetings, can't live without them). In somebody else's game it could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Tea time. One lump, or two?

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:31pm
Unfortunately ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045078)
Your bolded statement is a huge assumption that is not true for most HS officials.
Yeah, that's me looking at the world through rose colored glasses again. Glass half full, not half empty. One of my many character flaws.

I didn't mean going back to ancient rules and interpretations, but a solid understanding of rules and interpretations that is normally needed to be good official.

Unfortunately we've got more than a few local officials that don't know if the basketball is inflated or stuffed.

And they're not all rookies.

I know, I work with many of them in my mid-afternoon middle school games.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045079)
Nice post JRutledge.

Officiate differently? No. Agree.

Why are we worried? Worried may be too strong a word. The issue is that coaches often misunderstanding rule changes or points of emphases can spark "irritating" conversations.

Sounds like JRutledge was able to use his excellent game management skills to "defuse" his goaltending conversation, but it would have been nice if it never happened. In somebody else's game it could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Tea time. One lump, or two?
You worry way too much about coaches and what they think and what they might say.

Know the rules, know how to quickly and concisely explain them, learn to communicate with coaches, learn when to ignore their comments, learn when to address their comments, learn when to penalize their comments. All these what-ifs worries of yours only lead to stagnation and officiating with fear instead of confidence.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:54pm
BTW, coaches don't get T's because they don't know the rules, they get them for unsporting behavior and conduct. I've never given a T to a coach for arguing about what a rule is.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 01:09pm
Different Strokes ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045078)
Again, if we are seeing the same materials all those what-ifs are moot. If you want coaches to get different material, go for it. Good luck in trying to figure out if they got the same message as you.
I misspoke earlier. Coaches see the same slides, etc., that we see, but may get a slightly different oral explanation since their rules knowledge won't be as complete as the rules knowledge of officials.

Also, officials will often share "secrets" that only officials can say to other officials (protecting star players, different calls in close games versus lopsided games, rule of thumb shortcuts, etc.).

Over forty years ago, at my first preseason meeting, my interpreter used a stack of three by five index cards, a grease pen, and an overhead projector, to cover everything. We've progressed to Power Point slides, slides that often contain both the NFHS and the IAABO logo, and videotapes of plays.

This year, local IAABO boards, if they wish, can use an IAABO International professionally produced preseason presentation videotape, with a voice over, that includes static slides, and videos, of changes and points of emphasis. It has everything needed for a preseason presentation in one package.

Turn on the videotape, walk away, and take questions after the presentation.

Will certainly (if used) lead to consistent statewide (or international) presentations for both officials, and for coaches.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 01:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045084)
I misspoke earlier. Coaches see the same slides, etc., that we see, but may get a slightly different oral explanation since their rules knowledge won't be as complete as the rules knowledge of officials.

Also, officials will often share "secrets" that only officials can say to other officials (protecting star players, different calls in close games versus lopsided games, rule of thumb shortcuts, etc.).
...
I have no "secret handshakes". Again, maybe I'm just used to dealing with different types of coaches than you have in your little corner. I find just being honest about what I'm doing (I don't explain for my partners) is the best route. Also, my state is not in the habit of putting "secret handshake" material in the annual clinics.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 01:38pm
Technical foul ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045081)
You worry way too much about coaches and what they think and what they might say.
Avoiding irritants is not the same as cowardly conduct. It's good game management.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045082)
... coaches don't get T's because they don't know the rules, they get them for unsporting behavior and conduct. I've never given a T to a coach for arguing about what a rule is.
What leads to the unsporting behavior and conduct? Most times it's a biased one sided view, or just anger at a missed call (we all miss calls occasionally), but sometimes it's due to a misinterpretation of a rule and 99% of the time the officials know the application of the rule better than the coach.

Example. Two years ago. Last minute of a close game. Small player in the act of shooting is barreled into by a much larger player like a linebacker hitting a running back. No attempt to block the shot, just a hard body check. Ball doesn't go in basket. I've got intentional foul for excessive contact. Coach questions me about my call, "That's not an intentional foul", as I report. I calmly take an extra step and explain my call to him. He actually agrees that there was excessive contact but that it isn't an intentional foul. I tell him that by definition, excessive contact is an intentional foul. I guess that didn't persuade him because as I walk back to administer the free throw, he questions me again, "That's not an intentional foul". So turn around to calmly talk to him again, leading with, "Was that contact excessive?". He replies that it was excessive and I tell him again that by definition, excessive contact is an intentional foul, and I walk back to administer the free throws with my partner. As we're lining up for the free throws he now proceeds to yell at me from across the gym, "You're wrong. That's not an intentional foul". Technical foul.

Definitely unsporting behavior and conduct. What lead to that? Arguing about what a rule is.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 01:52pm
Protecting Star Players ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045085)
I have no "secret handshakes". I find just being honest about what I'm doing is the best route.
So you would have no problem saying, "Yeah coach, they both hit him and maybe #15 did hit him a split second before #12 did, but #15 is their best player and he has four fouls in the fourth period a close game".

Note: I'm not a big advocate of protecting star players, but I do try to be aware of star player foul totals for 50/50 calls in the last period. Other officials I work with, in my opinion, go over and above to protect such players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045085)
My state is not in the habit of putting "secret handshake" material in the annual clinics.
Exactly my point (for presentations to coaches).

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:06pm
More Localities And Levels ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045077)
Your view is very limited to a small corner of Connecticut. I apparently officiate coaches with a higher basketball IQ. I have definitely officiated a lot more localities and levels than you have.
Absolutely 100% true. Haven't officiated more than a handful of games outside of my little corner of Connecticut (never outside Connecticut) and only two games above the high school varsity level.

And keep in mind that even back when I was working a full varsity high school schedule, I was still working recreation games on off nights (for the money, three kids going to college), and Catholic middle school games on off nights (because I liked the league, the assigner, the officials, the money, and all games close by).

And for the past few years, due to chronic arthritis in my ankle, I have self regulated myself to subvarsity games, which due to my retirement from my day job, and my availability in the mid-afternoon, have mostly been middle school and freshman games.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045086)
Avoiding irritants is not the same as cowardly conduct. It's good game management.



What leads to the unsporting behavior and conduct? Most times it's a biased one sided view, or just anger at a missed call (we all miss calls occasionally), but sometimes it's due to a misinterpretation of a rule and 99% of the time the officials know the application of the rule better than the coach.

Example. Two years ago. Last minute of a close game. Small player in the act of shooting is barreled into by a much larger player like a linebacker hitting a running back. No attempt to block the shot, just a hard body check. Ball doesn't go in basket. I've got intentional foul for excessive contact. Coach questions me about my call, "That's not an intentional foul", as I report. I calmly take and extra step and explain my call to him. He actually agrees that there was excessive contact but that it isn't an intentional foul. I tell him that by definition, excessive contact is an intentional foul. I guess that didn't persuade him because as I walk back to administer the free throw, he questions me again, "That's not an intentional foul". So turn around to calmly talk to him again, leading with, "Was that contact excessive?". He replies that it was excessive and I tell him again that by definition, excessive contact is an intentional foul, and I walk back to administer the free throws with my partner. As we're lining up for the free throws he now proceeds to yell at me from across the gym, "You're wrong. That's not an intentional foul". Technical foul.

Definitely unsporting behavior and conduct. What lead to that? Arguing about what a rule is.
The T is for unsporting behavior, not for not knowing the rule.

Since you already operate on the premise that coaches don't know the rules, shouldn't you have been able to avoid that "irritant"? Did worrying about what coaches might think prevent the situation from happening?

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045087)
So you would have no problem saying, "Yeah coach, they both hit him and maybe #15 did hit him a split second before #12 did, but #15 is their best player and he has four fouls in the fourth period a close game".

Note: I'm not a big advocate of protecting star players, but I do try to be aware of star player foul totals for 50/50 calls in the last period. Other officials I work with, in my opinion, go over and above to protect such players.



Exactly my point (for presentations to coaches).
Since your Little Corner apparently has a problem with coaches knowing the rules maybe your locality should change up the ineffective "coaches only" training presentation and have them receive the same one you get. And maybe your locality shouldn't be including "secret handshake" training with its officials. Coaches, players, and fans are not stupid. The recognize when officials are blatantly calling the game differently for stars or for blow-outs.

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045087)
So you would have no problem saying, "Yeah coach, they both hit him and maybe #15 did hit him a split second before #12 did, but #15 is their best player and he has four fouls in the fourth period a close game".
....
You are way too verbose.

"I had a foul on #12, maybe I got it wrong".

You pose questions to me like I'm new to this and trying to figure things out and your giving me examples of things I never fathomed.

I answer direct questions with as few words as possible. I don't conduct rules clinics on the sidelines. If a coach starts a whole bunch of BS after I respond to them I say, "You asked me a question, I answered it" then turn my attentions fully back to court. I'm not worried about what a coach is thinking at that point.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:26pm
Didn't Know The Rule ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045089)
The T is for unsporting behavior, not for not knowing the rule.
If the coach had known the definition of a intentional foul, which he obviously didn't, then there would have been no technical foul because he agreed with me that the contact was excessive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045089)
Since you already operate on the premise that coaches don't know the rules, shouldn't you have been able to avoid that "irritant"?
Not sure how? Knowing that he didn't know the rule, I twice calmly explained to him the definition of an intentional foul (that it included excessive contact), once from a step toward him from reporting area, and again face to face.

I am very patient with coaches (I coached for twenty-five years). I don't give out technical fouls like penny candy, nor do I falsely pride myself on not charging technical fouls, as some do. I am very confident in my game management skills, and I am evaluated as such by both evaluators and partners.

I honestly don't know how I could have avoided that technical foul. The coach was well behaved for thirty minutes. For some reason he decided to die on that hill.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:33pm
Little Secret ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045091)
"I had a foul on #12, maybe I got it wrong".
The whole truth ...

Of course we would never say, "Yeah coach, they both hit him and maybe #15 did hit him a split second before #12 did, but #15 is their best player and he has four fouls in the fourth period a close game", to a coach in a real game, but I'm sure that some of us have heard this philosophy at our officials-only meetings, if not "officially", maybe at the pub after our games.

Answering, "I had a foul on #12, maybe I got it wrong", while knowing that there's actually more to it, is our little secret.

Players know it. Coaches know it. Fans know it. But it's never talked about in the presence of non-officials.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:52pm
Educational Contact ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045090)
... problem with coaches knowing the rules maybe your locality should change up the ineffective "coaches only" training presentation and have them receive the same one you get.
The only "educational" contact we have with coaches is regarding new rule changes and Points of Emphasis.

It's only an hour each year, and yet we have problems getting coaches to attend. Penalty for not attending is not eligible for annual sportsmanship awards. And each team only has to send one coach, even if it's the freshman coach.

After a few years of coaching, I realized that I didn't really understand all the rules, and was getting a lot of technical fouls. So I took the local rookie officiating class only to learn the rules. Took the test, passed the test, and then discovered that I could make some extra money officiating basketball (Connecticut teachers were poorly paid back then). Coaching lasted for "only" twenty-five years, forty years later and I'm still officiating.

JRutledge Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045079)
Nice post JRutledge.

Officiate differently? No. Agree.

Why are we worried? Worried may be too strong a word. The issue is that coaches often misunderstanding rule changes or points of emphases can spark "irritating" conversations.

Sounds like JRutledge was able to use his excellent game management skills to "defuse" his goaltending conversation, but it would have been nice if it never happened (don't know how to achieve that, can't live with coaches preseason meetings, can't live without them). In somebody else's game it could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Tea time. One lump, or two?
It was not hard to tell the coach, "That is not the rule." Moved on and it did not change the call to his satisfaction. I did not have the time to give a rules clinic.

Peace

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 02:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045094)
The only "educational" contact we have with coaches is regarding new rule changes and Points of Emphasis.



It's only an hour each year, and yet we have problems getting coaches to attend. Penalty for not attending is not eligible for annual sportsmanship awards. And each team only has to send one coach, even if it's the freshman coach.



My first year coaching, I soon realized that I didn't really understand all the rules, and was getting a lot of technical fouls. So I took the local rookie officiating class only to learn the rules. Took the test, passed the test, and then discovered that I could make some extra money officiating basketball. Coaching lasted for "only" twenty-five years, forty years later and I'm still officiating.
This portion of our conversation only happened because you said coaches need to receive a different presentation than officials. I said I like it that we all receive the same presentation down here in Virginia.

If your schools are not taking the training presentations seriously, why are you so hell-bent on defending that process?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 03:17pm
Mandatory ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045096)
If your schools are not taking the training presentations seriously, why are you so hell-bent on defending that process?
I'm not. It's not a great system. Attendance is only required by our local officials organization, not the state association. Those that do not send a team representative will not be eligible for the sportsmanship awards, but that's not why they come, they come because they see some value in the presentation.

I would like to see the state association (CIAC) make attendance mandatory, even if it's only for one team representative.

And it's the twenty-first century. So it doesn't have to be in person. It could be a Zoom (or whatever) presentation.

Even a flyer emailed (maybe with attached slides or video) to each team (in addition to the live or virtual presentation) would be better than what we have now.

All local IAABO interpreters will have access to a professionally produced IAABO "new rules" video, just send it to each team (in addition to the live or virtual presentation).

Raymond Thu Oct 07, 2021 03:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045097)
I'm not. It's not a great system. Attendance is only required by our local officials organization, not the state association. Those that do send a team representative don't do so to be eligible for the sportsmanship awards, but because they see some value in the presentation.



I would like to see the state association (CIAC) make attendance mandatory, even if it's only for one team representative.



And it's the twenty-first century. So it doesn't have to be in person. It could be a Zoom (or whatever) presentation.
My state, preseason rules clinic is mandatory for schools and officials. We all receive the same presentation in the same format. When these things were done in person, coaches and officials attended the exact same clinics. If the state wants special attention on a subject, coaches and officials all receive the same information.

A preseason rules clinic by the state is not the same as association training where the assigner or supervisor tells his officials his philosophy and how he wants certain things handled.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 03:27pm
Game Management ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1045095)
It was not hard to tell the coach, "That is not the rule." Moved on and it did not change the call to his satisfaction.
No such luck in my game. Still can't figure out how I could have handled it better. He was well behaved for thirty minutes. Changed like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In a close game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045086)
Two years ago. Last minute of a close game. Small player in the act of shooting is barreled into by a much larger player like a linebacker hitting a running back. No attempt to block the shot, just a hard body check. Ball doesn't go in basket. I've got intentional foul for excessive contact. Coach questions me about my call, "That's not an intentional foul", as I report. I calmly take an extra step and explain my call to him. He actually agrees that there was excessive contact but that it isn't an intentional foul. I tell him that by definition, excessive contact is an intentional foul. I guess that didn't persuade him because as I walk back to administer the free throw, he questions me again, "That's not an intentional foul". So turn around to calmly talk to him again, leading with, "Was that contact excessive?". He replies that it was excessive and I tell him again that by definition, excessive contact is an intentional foul, and I walk back to administer the free throws with my partner. As we're lining up for the free throws he now proceeds to yell at me from across the gym, "You're wrong. That's not an intentional foul". Technical foul.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 03:36pm
Mandatory ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045098)
My state, preseason rules clinic is mandatory for schools and officials. We all receive the same presentation in the same format. When these things were done in person, coaches and officials attended the exact same clinics. If the state wants special attention on a subject, coaches and officials all receive the same information. A preseason rules clinic by the state is not the same as association training where the assigner or supervisor tells his officials his philosophy and how he wants certain things handled.
Sounds like a great system. Everybody on the same page. Wish we had the same here.

And your last sentence is why we haven't, in the past, had the exact same presentation to coaches and officials. Assigners and interpreters in the past have taught officials philosophy at this preseason new rules meeting, which we treated as any other meeting. That's changed over the past few years as we're using more "standardized" resources from both the NFHS and IAABO (Power Points, etc.), absent of any local (or individual) philosophies (secrets), for our preseason new rules meeting.

BillyMac Thu Oct 07, 2021 06:00pm
State Tournament ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045097)
Those that do not send a team representative will not be eligible for the sportsmanship awards ...
We also tie our sportsmanship awards to whether, or not, local coaches send in their "votes" for the state tournament.

Many local coaches don't send in "votes" if they know that they won't make the state tournament (40% wins). Our assigner hates that because that leaves some of our local officials off the state list, and my local board gets fewer representatives in the state tournament than do the other five local boards that have local coaches that do a more complete job of voting.

Don't come to the preseason meeting, or don't vote for the state tournament, and that team isn't eligible for a sportsmanship award, even if charged with no unsporting technical fouls all season long.

Seems silly.

Are these carrots or sticks? If carrots, how tasty are the carrots? If sticks, how painful are the sticks?

Silly monkeys.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1