I dont understand coaches

[WinterWillie]

Discretion is the better part of valor regarding the assistant
coach. If you in your wisdom were to slap a T on the assistant,
an indirect would be charged to the head coach and then the "seat belt rule" would be in effect. That would not bode well for you, especially if the assistant was only asking you a question. I think the rule is significantly gray regarding this so much so that I would not want to become the object of his affection. Incidentally, during a timeout the bench area extends from the 28' hash mark almost to the end line and all the way over to the paint. That would legally allow the assistant to get close enough to ask an official a question without being penalized.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Yet, since we often allow head coaches to ask us stuff, about a particular play, without penalty, is there any special reason we should not allow an asst. coach to ask the same question? I think not. Civility assumed, asst. coach wants to know something; we answer.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree,mick. I'd never dream of Ting up n assistant for asking a civil question. He'd get a civil answer. I won't let one question or b*tch about a call though- ever. One warning, and then bang. All I'm saying is that the NFHS rules do not, by rule, allow assistant coaches to ask you questions at any time. The penalty for doing so is supposed to be a T.

The same rule says that the head coach isn't supposed to ever question a call either, or he gets a T. That one never gets called literally, either.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
I think the rule is significantly gray regarding this so much so that I would not want to become the object of his affection. Incidentally, during a timeout the bench area extends from the 28' hash mark almost to the end line and all the way over to the paint. That would legally allow the assistant to get close enough to ask an official a question without being penalized.

Nope, the rule isn't grey at all. It's about as precise as you can get. The only coaching duties that are allowed during a TO are spelled out in R10-5-2a. Assistant coaches asking you questions isn't listed. By rule then, it's supposed to be a T.

Again, note that I'm just telling you what the rule is literally. I'm not telling you to call it by the rule. It's there if you need it.

[ronny mulkey]

Mick,

I agree wholeheartedly with you about giving the assistant a little dignity. He works long days AND ends up doing all the things the head coach doesn't want to do. I am not buyin into the mantra that we should put up with a little crap from the head coach but not any at all from the assistant. I'm standing out there on the floor listening to one of my partners who is saying "I'll listen to the headcoach but I'm not listening to anything from that sum*****" and I'm thinking that I'll listen to the assistant but I'm not taking anything from that sum*****. It is my way of sayin to treat them the same - not necessarily like sum*****es but use bench decorum guidelines for both.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Agree,mick. I'd never dream of Ting up n assistant for asking a civil question. He'd get a civil answer. I won't let one question or b*tch about a call though- ever. One warning, and then bang. All I'm saying is that the NFHS rules do not, by rule, allow assistant coaches to ask you questions at any time. The penalty for doing so is supposed to be a T.

I think I said in my other post that I would answer a civil situation-related question. I will never discuss a call with an assistant, period, even if it's asked civilly. I don't care how long his/her hours are. "Direct any questions through your head coach", is my standard comment. And if the assistant comes onto the floor to question a call, it's a very short leash. If the assistant gets banged, who do you think it "won't bode well for"? The assistant, b/c everybody knows he's got no business talking to the officials.

If head coaches are like women, b/c Ace can't unnerstan' 'em, then assistants are like children b/c the should be seen and not heard.

[WinterWillie]

There will be situations where a coach or an assistant wants you to call a T and a literal translation would require you to do it. It maybe their way of putting an exclamation point on what they consider to be a poor performance by you. It would be to your advantage not to give them what they want. In the game of oneupsmanship (game management) you win by showing restraint
and not letting them get into your head.

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
If the assistant gets banged, who do you think it "won't bode well for"? The assistant, b/c everybody knows he's got no business talking to the officials.

Chuck,
That's what I am trying to understand.
I don't know, "Why?"
Is that another 'just cuz'?
mick

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
Is that another 'just cuz'?
mick

yU.P.

Actually, I think it is supported by rule, as JR pointed out. And it also filters out some of the crap that the officials would otherwise be subjected to. Imagine if assistants were allowed to discuss calls and plays with the officials. It would never stop. It would be the assistant's job so that the head coach could coach the team. By forbidding that kind of discussion with the assistant, you get a much smaller slice of crap b/c the head coach has to continue to coach his players.

That's why I always tell the assistant to "Direct any questions through your head coach." Guess how many of those questions actually get asked by the head coach? Almost none, b/c they really weren't important enough to ask in the first place. So why bother dealing them?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
There will be situations where a coach or an assistant wants you to call a T and a literal translation would require you to do it. It maybe their way of putting an exclamation point on what they consider to be a poor performance by you. It would be to your advantage not to give them what they want. In the game of oneupsmanship (game management) you win by showing restraint
and not letting them get into your head.

Willie, maybe you'll put up with poor sportsmanship. That's your choice. I won't!

[ronny mulkey]

Chuck,

Do you take less crap from the point guard than the big post? Do you take less crap from the visiting book than you do the home book? Where will it stop? I don't think anybody is suggesting that you put up with unsportsmanlike conduct from an assistant but where do you come up with the philosophy "everybody knows that assistants have no business" or are to be seen and not heard? Did someone teach you that? Are you teaching everybody else that?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
Chuck,

Do you take less crap from the point guard than the big post?

Of course. He's smaller. He's got less crap to give.

Do you take less crap from the visiting book than you do the home book?

Actually, it depends on which scorer is cuter.

Where will it stop?

Cats and dogs -- living together!! Mass hysteria!!!

where do you come up with the philosophy "everybody knows that assistants have no business" or are to be seen and not heard? Did someone teach you that? Are you teaching everybody else that?

Ok, time to be serious. Head coaches chirp. Correct? We can agree on that. They chirp to get in your head, or b/c they feel they have to advocate for their players, or b/c they're trying to buy the next close call, or whatever. Right? This chirping is almost never unsportsmanlike. Can we agree so far?

Now are you really going to allow two or three coaches on each bench to chirp at you during the game? Even tho it's not unsportsmanlike? Seriously, are you? I'm not. So where do you draw the line? There's one person on each bench that I will pay attention to, period. Got a question? Have your head coach ask me. If you don't do that as an official, the amount of crap you will listen to will go up exponentially.

Frankly, I can't believe that there's anybody who would say that you should listen to "word 1" from an assistant. Even the coaches know that the assistants can't talk to the officials. If you T an assistant, the head coach is NEVER upset with the official. The head coach is upset with the assistant, b/c he knows that the assistant never should've been talking to the official in the first place.

Is that written in stone someplace? I really don't know. And I really don't care. It's good game management to eliminate as many distractions as you can. And just to be clear, let me iterate that I will listen to a reasonable situation-related question. (Where's the ball being put in play? Who was that last foul on? Should we have a reset on the shot clock?) But I will not listen to questions from assistants about plays, period.

I would've sworn that everybody already knew that.

P.S. -- the first person to mention Hitler loses the debate. Isn't that right, Dan?

[just another ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Head coaches chirp.......This chirping is almost never unsportsmanlike. Can we agree so far?

Not so sure about this one.....unsportsmanlike is a broad term, I suppose.

[Hawks Coach]

I think that what is normally characterized as "chirping" is not necessarily unsportsmanlike, but it is un-necessary and annoying. When it goes beyond the "chirp" into confrontation or derision, it crosses the line and needs to be addressed.

If you sit with any parochial fan of a team, they see all sorts of travels, fouls, etc., and can't understand why the ref can't see what they are seeing. I watch a lot of games in which I have no interest in the outcome, and you begin to see the game differently. the chirping is just a reflection of the fact that you have a very parochial person watching the contest from a very biased perspective.

[Ref Daddy]

I reffered recently with a newby that came to our chapter from the Coach's chair. Albeit small time 7 / 8th grade - this chap had interesting point:

i asked him what he was "tought" in coach's meetings and conferences regarding "chirping" (our term).

His response was that both official coach's training and mentoring says to stay on the referee's relentlessly all game.

Its was taught to him as being part of his coaching duties.

Comments?

[WindyCityRef]

I just started Officiating last year, loving every minute of it, and having coached at the grammer school level since 1980 I can tell you that I never heard anyone say that coaches 'should' stay on the refs during the game, never.

I still coach grammer school and club ball and I can tell you that I'm a much better coach now because I understand the game rules thanks to being an official also. Personally, I feel every coach should 'have' to take the same test we do every single year. Maybe even make them work a clinic every three years too. The kids would benefit a ton, and we would stop hearing all that stupid, "THREE SECONDS!, Over the back!" stuff.