I do agree with your language policy, however I do not think the situation in this post is comparable.

I think there is a difference between civility and respect. I think the exchange outlined in this post was civil, and the respect shown was as much as the respect offered.

More to the point, if the player had responded, "Yes, I understand you $%*!#&" Sure, T him up for unsportsmanlike conduct and a lack of civility.

Just to clarify, I am not 100% positive you are saying the player in this post was being uncivil, or think he might/should have been T'd, but again, I do agree with your perspective, just not that this situation is an example of it. ...If you are saying that.

I'm not suggesting that the relationships between player-ref and serviceman-superior are the same. Only making a point about assumptions of perspective.

Thanks for all the feedback here. Good discussion.

Dan, If you can find something in the mechanics manual that instructs the official to do this, then I will happily do so, but in the absence of that I believe that you are unfairly helping the inbounding team. It is the coach's job to instruct his team on these type of tactics, not the official's.
I can agree with giving a signal for designating the spot, as that is clearly one of our duties, but not much else.

Actually, by signalling, you are helping all involved - your team of refs, the opposing team, and the team getting the ball. By making a clear signal coming out of the TO, you are letting everybody on the court know the situation, not just the inbounding team.

And you also might keep yourself from making a mistake. Last tournament we were at, one ref had the wrong spot, which I was able to point out before he administered the throw-in. Another ref had them running the endline when it was being inbounded off a travelling call on the endline (but we were coming out of a TO and he forgot). Both of these I caught becuse of the signal. In the latter case, I probably couldn't have done anything if the player had started to run the endline wit no signal, but the ref allowed it to happen.

Mark
You don't want foul language - this player is silent. You don't want impoliteness, defined here as you the authority figure say something and a player should respond to you in a polite manner - show me the rule for that.

Someone posted that we should talk to coaches and players as little as possible. Several people have said something similar. I'm getting blasted on another thread for a perception of not being approachable which is not the case. So I'm seeing a contradiction, some say talk and some say don't talk. We must communicate, period. If we don't communicate all heck can break loose. I would rather not hear a wishy washy sometimes we should and sometimes we shouldn't. Face the facts, we communicate until the message is not doing any good. The next thing you know we are acting like one of the Wonder Twins; "in the form of a T." :D

We have to talk, although I wouldn't give a T in this situation. I would probably stop talking and you know what comes next, if it is warranted. :) Some kids are going to be young jerks because they are allowed to be jerks due to being coached and parented by older jerks. Often, the best thing to do is just ref the game so they can go on about their way and leave our company!

Unfortunately, imo that statement is a truism, whether you want to hear it or not. Some situations require talking and some don't, and personal experience usually tells you what action might be the better way in any given situation. I don't think that this particular situation requires too much in the way of talking- just warn the kid to stay inbounds and move on. Personally, being unable to read minds- especially those of teenagers- I can't think of any rule that would allow me to call a T in this situation anyway.

we never said don't communicate
 

Tomegun
In the other thread, we didn't say don't talk. We said to say your piece and administer the throw-in. We said you shouldn't demand a response from a player. If the player asks a question in a proper manner (where's the plane, what's the rule, etc.), you should give a response.

I don't think that this thread says something different. If they talk, listen to the point that you feel you need to, and respond as appropriate. Then get on with it. I believe that to be a pretty consistent philosophy with the other thread. I always encourage appropriate communication. When the coaches and players start crossing the line, put an end to it with a hand or a T.

I'm all for talking when needed. If it isn't needed then I don't have anything to say. I'm approachable but I will not be the guy the coach is always talking to because he/she knows I will listen to whatever. IMO the two threads aren't consistent. I think JR has been consistent as far as when to talk and when not to talk. like the players, we have good days and bad days. On a good day I would say something to the player and move on. On a bad day I would keep quiet and use the "wish" theory. I would not give a T for not answering me on my worst day. I think we can be consistent by giving a warning then a T for the next such violation. That is the rule. Everything else in between is an attempt at game management and the fact is some players are so hard headed that they don't know when we are trying to help with our mouths instead of using our whistles.
Hawks Coach, while I applaud you for being here, your points of view are those of a coach and although you bring up valid points and this forum has undoubtedly helped you communicate with officials, you look at things through the eyes of a coach. I can't recall any thread where you have mentioned officiating. If you haven't then you are not aware of all the little things that are said and happen on the court. I have played, coached and officiated. While some would say it is hardest to be a coach I will say that your job can make you feel the most helpless. I would not want to do what you do (unless the money was right, I ain't no fool).

I frankly don't care whether you do it or not.

What I care about is if *I* don't do it my schedule will suffer.

BTW, the coach's post explains well why we do this. Communicaton.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 15th, 2004 at 10:41 AM]

Re: A player's perspective
 

Hey Ryan, does the 330i part stand for the car?

More often than not the teenager can't read their own minds...but that's another discussion.

On how much talking you should do: some folks interact better than others. If you don't interact well with people (not a bad thing at all) or are not sure what to say in a situation just keep your fu....errr...dextering mouth shut.

Yea, a car forum was one of the first I was active in, and I've stuck with the nickname/ID for convenience. It helps that I do love the car dearly.

What year? I've been looking at them myself.

I have not officiated basketball. I have officiated soccer. I have sat through official's training for basketball with my son when he was getting qualified. I have played, multiple team sports, including basketball, multiple levels, quit competing due to knees about 4 years ago. I think I know what is said on the field, on the court, etc. But then again, maybe not. Maybe only you know.

You try to argue a point by challenging my credentials, not the points that I have made. You think I argue only from a coach's perspective. I think I present things as a coach, but looking at a little broader perspective - that of the game of basketball, how it should be played and officiated. I think that people who choose to argue based on what my screen name says I am rather than the points I make don't choose to engage issues, they choose to close their minds to an individual because of who they are.

It's a free country, you can think what you want. I think you are way off base on this one, and any other post where you choose to make the case that my points are invalid because of who I am. But it is your right, and it is your opinion, freely expressed. If you care to actually engage reall issues instead of red herrings, please do so here.