They're like women if you ask me... can't ever understand em. (no offense)

In the past 4 days i've had two weird coaches.

Saturday: 20 pt lead and she holalrs about everything. Goes under by 5 and shes quiet as a mouse... Go figure.


Last night: 20 POINT LEAD! Full court press - players all over the dribbler contact. I called 2 fouls - switched with my partner - he called 1. We switch and I finally somehow manage to find the player control in all of this as the dribbler lowered his shoulder and initatied contact. But the coach was mad that we called 3 fouls in a row - right off the baseline when his team had a 23 point lead and waas still full court pressing... Go figure!!!!


Anywho...

Gotta get ready for the 7th grade boys triple header i've got tonight :-D

Think how the coach will feel when you call 7 or 8 fouls in a row when they're up 35 points and still committing fouls.

Then think about how much you care about how the coach feels. Don't change the way you call the game.

I can clearly explain the former. You tend to get sloppy when you get ahead - and obviously they were if they blew a 20 point lead. she must have had plenty to scream about. sometimes you take a different demeanor when you are trying to get your team to make a run. Not there, so hard to say what was going on. But it doesn't sound so wierd to me.

No offense? To women or coaches?

And what exactly is wrong with women?

They are my favorite people.

Speaking of “coach” stories….
 

Last night, 8th Grade girls (need I go on? :D)… 3.5 seconds remaining in 4th Qtr, Blue up by two is shooting 1st shot of bonus FTs… Airball.

Red coach calls time out. Assistant coach, who had been chirping throughout the game, (father of a player who was “violently blocked” on a drive and had her feelings hurt earlier in the quarter) races out to me to tell me that the throw-in is administered at the intersection of the sideline and the FT Line extended because the shooter is the one who violated during the FT.

“Sorry Coach. By rule, the ball will be inbounded at the endline. By rule, this could be a technical.” He walks away in disgust.

I almost thought I had Bobby Knight’s younger brother… which is the basis of most of these coaches. They saw it on TV. (That is a whole new thread :D)


For JR, and other seasoned veterans: Wasn’t inbounding at the division after a Time-out in the NBA rules a few years back?

Assistant coaches have no business coming on the floor. If you see him headed out at a time out, I'd probably put up a hand and tell him to go back to his bench. If head coach wants to ask where the ball goes I might entertain that, Look at the first three letters of the word assistant and you have a good idea of what I am tlking about. Whack him for being on the floor...If not get him off fast and tell him you only talk to the head coach not the *** istant

NBA rule is that during the last two minutes of the game when the team call time out they can move it to mid court..
(that's why the NBA courtside announcer gives the two minutes. It is required by rule... Once in the two minute period, team gets the second foul its penalty (bonus). No waiting for 3,4,5 fouls... (Love to see that rule in NF), they can advance the ball to mid court (4th qtr) and can only call two fulls and a twenty...

Drake or Chuck will set me straight if I missed something. Damn that's what I get for no Pro-Am last summer

First of all, I agree with Kelvin about dealing with the assistant coach. Assistant comes out on the floor and s/he's got about 2 nanoseconds to turn back around, otherwise "BANG!" As Kelvin said, that's a little more lenient if the question is a reasonable, situation-related question. ("Where's the throw-in?" "Who was that last foul on?")

The only thing Kelvin missed is that after the TO, the ball is put in play at the 28' mark in the team's frontcourt. It used to be halfcourt, but that changed a couple years ago.

Don't beat yourself up too much, Kelvin. You were probably busy over the summer, no? Thanks, again, too.

They are nuts!!!
 

I was at a Football Banquet last night. We had a speaker that has been a long time D1-AA Football Official. He said this about coaches.

<b>"You have to understand that coaches spend a lot of their time coaching, which is for many some kind of livelyhood and they get to control ever aspect of their program, except you (meaning the officials)."</b>

I think this rings true for me. I had a game this weekend where the home coach threatened me about "we will not have you back next year." I said to him in the calmest of voices, "I really do not care." I was working at a school that they assign themselves, I pasted 100 schools to get to that school. One of my partners was from another part of the state as well. It was funny to me and something I thought of when the comments were made by the football official.

What I have found is that there are many nice people that are coaches, they just get nuts when the game starts and seem to stay that way until the game ends. I think we just have to keep it in perspective.

Peace

Chuck

Thanks for setting me straight. I had forgot about that change. then you got me thinking, they can also toss the ball in to back court at that point too?

Need to get back and ref some ball... amazing how much you forget when youre not doing it all the time...

Help me here, please.
 

By what rule do we whack an assistant coach who, during a dead ball time out, comes onto the floor (assume no swearin'/ hollerin'/ intimidatin'/ trepidatin') to question a call?

mick

edited in: time-out



[Edited by mick on Dec 11th, 2003 at 07:30 PM]

By what rule do we whack an assistant coach who, during a dead ball time out, comes onto the floor (assume no swearin'/ hollerin'/ intimidatin'/ trepidatin') to question a call?

[/B][/QUOTE]It's a no-no under NFHS rule 10-5-2(a). Up to the discretion of the official, but the assistant coach has got no b*tch if he does happen to get nailed.By rule, he's not supposed to be out of the bench area during a time-out, and he's also not supposed to be questioning any official.


[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 11th, 2003 at 08:25 PM]

It's a no-no under NFHS rule 10-5-2(a). Up to the discretion of the official, but the assistant coach has got no b*tch if he does happen to get nailed.By rule, he's not supposed to be out of the bench area during a time-out, and he's also not supposed to be questioning any official.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, JR,
But 10-5-2(a) doesn't address <u>any</u> coach talking to an official during a dead ball time-out.
And, that bench area has really quite a lot of room to roam. From what I read, or do not read, if any coach wants to talk to an official from the bench area, they can go right to the free throw lane to chat. Now, that's way on the floor.
mick

Thanks, JR,
But 10-5-2(a) doesn't address <u>any</u> coach talking to an official during a dead ball time-out.
And, that bench area has really quite a lot of room to roam. From what I read, or do not read, if any coach wants to talk to an official from the bench area, they can go right to the free throw lane to chat. Now, that's way on the floor.
mick
[/B][/QUOTE]
R10-5-2(a) tells you exactly what a coach <b>can</b> do during a time-out. If they do anything else beside <i>"confer with bench personnel and players within the confines of the bench area during a charged time-out"</i>, it's supposed to be a T.

I'm not saying a T should be called. I'm saying a T could be called,by rule.

R10-5-2(a) tells you exactly what a coach <b>can</b> do during a time-out. If they do anything else beside <i>"confer with bench personnel and players within the confines of the bench area during a charged time-out"</i>, it's supposed to be a T.

I'm not saying a T should be called. I'm saying a T could be called,by rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

Okay. (<I>Yer reachin' a might aren't you?</I>) I follow your thought, even though the head coach may approach the table at that time, he may confer with an official on the sideline at that time, he may get a drink of water; those are not spcificallly noted.

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.

mick

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.

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.

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.

I'll listen to that sum*****...
 

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.

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.

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.

Chuck,
That's what I am trying to understand.
<U>I don't know, "Why?" </U>
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?

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

We shoulda stopped Hitler at Poland...
 

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?

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


Actually, it depends on which scorer is cuter.

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

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? :)

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

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.

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?

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.

I'd say your coach has a decent sense of humor.