I'm reffing a tournament semi-final last weekend. One team was getting blown out by a better team. And you guessed it, it was the officials fault. Anyhow, late in the game the leading team has a baseline inbounds to go full court. The player defending the inbounds jumps completely out of bounds while waving his arms. I blow the whistle and notify the table that of the warning for delay. I tell the offending player, "make sure you don't come accross this line (waving my arm up and down), understand?" This kid (about 17) just gives me a stare. I repeat, "Do you understand?" He won't even look at me. Now I can give him an ultimatum. However, I elect not to and just hand the ball to the inbounding player. But now I'm pissed that he was so disrespectful.

In retrospect, I probably should have stated that he needs to stay on his side of the plane and left it at that. I have never had a kid ignore a direct question before.

Should I have handled that differently. Given that I already asked the question and now he is ignoring me it is not promoting the game any to allow that disrespect. However, to make an issue out of it can worsen the situation. Thoughts?

Personally, I shrug it off and hand the ball off to the inbounding player.

Thoughts?

What did you expect him to do, slaughter a calf as an offering for you?

Not all kids deal with "authority figures" in the same way. It's no big deal.

I will probably take a lot of heat for what I am about to post but so be it.

First, I do not want to hear excuses about the player being deaf. Without going into detail, ever since my first year as a women's college official I have made it a point to make sure if I have any deaf players on the court.

Second, I do not want to hear excuses about players not understanding english. The percentage of players in that category is extremely small.

Now to the heart of my post. Do not give the player (or any coach for that matter) an ultimatum. If the player is staring at you, he heard you. His refusual to answer your question is disrepectful and after the second refusal to answer you, it is okay to give him a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. If the the player's coach complains about the technical foul then shame on him, because he is part of the problem not part of the solution.

I am old school. I was taught to show respect to my elders and that included sports officials. My wife and I expect our sons to do the same. Over the last twenty years that has been a steady decline in civilized behavior and just because there has been a decline in civilized behavior is not reason to tolerate uncivilized behavior.

Time to fatten the calf and see if we can round up a virgin or 2...

:rolleyes:

I agree with Mark that this is completely disrespectful and I really dislike it when players behave this way.

That being said, I totally disagree that you should assess a technical foul for the player not responding to you. Doing so is only going to put ALL attention on your behavior rather than the player's.

If he is that much of an idiot, just wait a few minutes -- I'm sure that he is going to do something else stupid! You are doing him a courtesy for warning him about crossing over the boundary. If he ignores you, fine -- just call the tech for reaching over the plane rather than unsportsmanlike. If you just issued the warning and the player performs the same action again to receive the tech, what is the coach going to say?

I always try to identify the one or two PABs on each team and it's usually pretty easy to figure out who they are within the first couple of minutes. The challenge is to figure out which PAB belongs to which idiot parent in the stands :)

I'm not sure JR can get medical clearance for that kind of party, yet. . . :eek:

[Edited by ChuckElias on Apr 13th, 2004 at 11:50 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by footlocker I am old school. I was taught to show respect to my elders and that included sports officials. My wife and I expect our sons to do the same. Over the last twenty years that has been a steady decline in civilized behavior and just because there has been a decline in civilized behavior is not reason to tolerate uncivilized behavior.

Many socio-economic-environmental factors may come into play.
The kid may know better; perhaps he may not.
The kid may have been taught to react better; perhaps, he was not.

I won't like it either, but I will move on and leave the judgement to smarter people than I.
mick

Talk about over-reaction. Yeah, Matsui's 2 for his last 20, but he'll snap out of it. No need for the sacrifice yet!

Aren't you in NYC? Fat chance! :)

We'll just drive up to MA where the woman are not so likely to encounter a threat to their virginity.

Just don't try to find Three Wise Men while you're up there too. That could take a looooooong time.

Disrespect
 

I agree the kid is being disrespectful, but not to a degree of getting a "T". I would give the ball to the inbounder and play on. To me, a "T" would have to be an act of commision, not omission.

The players did not answer, which is his/her choice. In my opinion, if you "T" in this situation, you have more of a problem than the kid. What if the kid responded "Yes" instead of "Yes sir"? Isn't that disrespect also? You could argue it that way.

No "T", play on. Get the game overwith.

Many socio-economic-environmental factors may come into play.
The kid may know better; perhaps he may not.
The kid may have been taught to react better; perhaps, he was not.

I won't like it either, but I will move on and leave the judgement to smarter people than I.

[/B][/QUOTE]The kid may also just be a jerk. Be that as it may, I'm not gonna T some kid up just for not replying to a question like that either. He's already being warned for delay. If he doesn't heed the warning, oh well. Now he deserves the T.

The calf might be looking over his/her shoulder though. :eek:

New idea for a bumper sticker:

"Boston, where the cows are prettier than the women."

From a game management stand point to you really want to stop the game and shoot a couple for the T. Rub a little more salt in the wound. Get the coach and everyone else fired up. The kids team is getting beat up, he's upset. Yes he's being a jerk and he's not to happy with you. Yes, he needs to learn a lesson, but this is not the most teachable moment. Let it pass.

New idea for a bumper sticker:

"Boston, where the cows are prettier than the women."
[/B][/QUOTE]
"Boston, where men are MEN
and the farm animals are nervous."

Ah, good old Massachusetts - where the men are men, and the women look like it! Or was that Montana? Never can keep those "M" states straight...as to the original post - tell the kid once, don't ask for a response (no "Do you understand" questions), and put the ball in play...

If he stops reaching over the line, he's obviously listened to you. If he doesn't, then you can T him with little explaining to do later. I can't think of an easier T than a repeat violation here.
As long as he's not popping off to you, I see no reason to whack him here. Unless he offers you the Philly Salute to go with the Rio Linda stare, let it go.

"Boston, where men are MEN
and the farm animals are nervous." [/B][/QUOTE]

"Boston, where the women are tough & the men are pretty"

My personal opinion on the situation is that it's not unsportsmanlike to disregard a question. As others have said, T him for what he does. Perhaps the kid is just aware that if he says anything, it's going to be something bad (just b/c of his own frustration); and so he chooses to say nothing at all.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay. . .

First, he is a 17 year old kid - why are you asking him if he understands? As much as you took exception to him not answering, he may have felt that your comment was insulting and demeaning. Asking again may simply seem like you are treating him like he is an idiot. You shouldn't be surprised that he didn't respond - the words that were probably on his mind were the kind that can get you T'd up automatically.

You are only looking at this from your perspective. From my perspective, I see an authority figure talking down to a player with enough experience to know and understand the call you have made. You wouldn't say, "you travelled, do you understand what I am saying?" You would understand if that kind of comment offended a player, you probably didn't realize that your comment may have been equally offensive.

Now having said that, silence is definitely something that should not be T'd up. I am not sure what sportsmanship code requires that a player answer an official's question - it may be impolite, but it is a huge stretch to call an unsportsmanlike T for this. Even more so when you consider the points I made above.

I would let it go and try to get the game over with especially if the game is a blowout.

I can see MTD's point on the T although I wouldn't give him one. My question to all: is there ever a time in the game when you say something to a player and expect an answer? If there is not then you should ignore it. If there is then you should not ignore it. For instance, I might want to talk to someone to prevent them from doing something. Although they might not want to answer me, an answer could be just what they need to calm down and or understand that further action will result in something they do not want. In this case, it is game management to prevent something from happening by talking to players. I don't like to do this and be ignored. Some days I will get an answer, some days I will ignore it with the understanding that the next time will be action instead of words. It depends on the situation and the official. However, if an official is ignored and the same thing happens and they don't do anything then shame on that official. That behavior will trickle down to the next game and the player will think they can get away with this behavior every time.

Coach,
It's that blank stare that inititates an involuntary reflex.
I can remember that from when I used to be a parent.
<LI>"Y'understand?"<LI>"Ya hear me?"
mick

Get away with what behavior?

Remaining silent?

Thanks for the thoughts. No heat from me for these comments. I agree but still would rather avoid the T in a game like this.

I think I agree with this the most. This is pretty much how I handled it.

This is a great point Chuck. If I had considered this, I might not have been so irked by the disrespect.

Yeah, that’s a good one. I was being the disrespectful one. This is asinine. Coach, as an official, I have been instructed by senior officials and at camps to point out the plane that the defending player should not cross. Particularly I should do so after the infraction as a preventative measure before the next inbounds situation. BTW, I also let a kid know after a made bucket and a time-out that he has the right to run the endline before the next inbounds- am I patronizing him here too or just doing my job.

The fact is, the blank stare elicited the “understand?”

All the time I hear ‘genius’ coaches instruct a player about to shoot free throws, “Hey Tommy, make ‘em.” If that’s not stating the obvious, I don’t know what is.


And what perspective do you view things from? Don't presume to know what perspective I have viewed this from and I won't presume yours. Furthermore, I never made one mention of a Technical in my original post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick

Quote:

It's that blank stare that inititates an involuntary reflex. I can remember that from when I used to be a parent. <LI>"Y'understand?"<LI>"Ya hear me?" mick

Exactly.

Thanks for the thoughts. Like I said in my original post. I still appreciate the feedback as always. Even you, HawksCoach. Understand?;)

No need to ask "Do you understand?" Give the warning, give the ball to the inbounder, if the player ignores you, T time. This is one of those situations (blowout, extended garbage time), where it pays to follow mechanics to the letter, get out and go home.

Having asked the question, I don't feel you should be offended by the lack of response. Since you're not supposed to be asking the player whether or not he understands you, how can you penalize him for not responding?

While common courtesy demands a response, the rule book doesn't. At this point, it's time to move on.

There's no need to ask him if he understands or not. If he reaches over again, he didn't understand. If he doesn't, he did.

Let's say you T him for not responding. You go over toward the table and the coach asks, "what did he say?" You respond, "nothing". Rots of ruck with that.

Why do I say you are looking at it from your perspective? Simple, you never expressed any thought as to why the player may have reacted how he did. I gave some reasons that I thought you may not have considered, and you say they are asinine. I guess you have only one perspective - yours, although you don't seem to want to recognize that fact.

If you said don't break the plane and left it at that, you have no problem. His initial stare may mean any of a number of things, including "#$%^&*, I hate when that happens, "*&^%^$< I hate refs that call that" -- it really doesn't matter. He can think what he wants as long as he bites his tongue and says nothing to you. He is a competitor, he isn't going to like you or your calls all the time. As long as he doesn't vocalize his issue or give visible dissent, why look for trouble?

But you chose to interpret his stare as lack of understanding, then jumped in with a "do you understand" line. His stare now probably means "I wish this *&^*&&ing ref would shut the &*^%&^ up and get on with the game." Free country, and you seem to be asking for him to cop an attitude.

The first comment about the plane is appropriate, the "do you understand" could easily have been taken as demeaning. I don't know, I'm not the person to whom you were attempting to communicate. It sounds that way to me, and I wasn't there. A player of that age knows the rule, stating his offense without following up with "do you understand" would have been sufficient.

So untrue, though. Not to mention the fact that Boston proper has no cows.

To paraphrase from Old School: Boston . . . the sunshine state . . . gorrrgeous!

Hawks Coach let's put this in another perspective. Your in practice explaining to a player how to read screens. He doesn't respond. So you say "Do you understand" are you now demeaning this player. What if he doesn't respond to you after that. What consequence will there be. Are the other players expecting something to happen? Is he questioning your authority as a coach? I think the "do you understand" was probably more of courtesy to make sure he understood, because if he didn't he's about to be T'd up for violating the plane again. He's being disrespectful in both instances. I've already stated that I would pass on a T in this circumstance, but I find it difficult for a coach to defend this behavior. Winning demands an attitude, not this type of attitude however.

This whole thing reminds me a lot of the old story:

Coach - "Can I get a T for what I'm thinking?"
Ref - "No."
Coach - "Well, I think you're a jackdexter!"




Having called T's in similar situations, I can say that no good comes from it. Indicate the plane, administer the throw-in, move on.

OK, OK, I stand corrected:

"Boston, where the cows are almost as pretty as the women."

BTW the cows in Boston part is sorta literary license.

Quote:

To paraphrase from Old School: Boston . . . the sunshine state . . . gorrrgeous!

By Old School do you mean they would punish a teenager for saying nothing?

[Edited by Dan_ref on Apr 13th, 2004 at 04:16 PM]

No - the Old School reference was just to the attractiveness of cows (and women) in (and around) Boston.

What I meant was you warn a player and then you warn a player and then you warn a player and then you warn a player and then you warn a player!

Some people will do this over and over. The next game the player will think "the official will not do anything." Of course this isn't all players but some of them. That is al I meant.

When I am serious on the court, which is only about half of the time because I am such a smarta$$, I don't say anything to players or coaches that is not absolutely necessary.

I don't believe in many things that veteran officials say to do as preventative officiating.
For your two examples above:
1. I just call blow the whistle and report the warning to the table making sure that I speak loudly enough that the coach can hear me. If the coach wants to warn/instruct his player, he can do that. My view is that is his job.

2. While I always know whether the player can run the end line or not, I only tell them if they ask me. I believe that it is the coach's job to teach their players the rules of the game, not mine. I just make the calls.

I've found that this avoids most of the trouble.
In your original sitch, I wouldn't have even talked to the player, unless he asked me a direct question after the play.

I coach him - he has to respond to me or I can bench him. My relationship to my player is something different than yours as a ref. And I may speak to different players in different ways, knowing how they react to things. You don't know this nor should you.

Not all players view you as people who are there to help. And you are not there to coach him - you are there to make the call. If it is a 9 year old game, the question you asked has merit - they are just learning the game. For a HS varsity age player, make your calls and move on - you aren't their coach, you aren't there to teach them.

And I am not defending the player, I am explaining what he might have been thinking. Yeah I think he might be copping an attitude, but I am simply saying that refs shouldn't be looking to T a player for having an attitude they don't like when they make a call. You and I agree on this. When I see a player copping an attitude on the court, I yank them. But that is a coaching decision, not a referee's decision. If the palyer is po'd the best thing to do is say nothing rather than say what is on his mind - I tell my players that all the time.

Isn't there a minimum heigth requirement to be a lumberjack?:

I don't believe in many things that veteran officials say to do as preventative officiating.
For your two examples above:
1. I just call blow the whistle and report the warning to the table making sure that I speak loudly enough that the coach can hear me. If the coach wants to warn/instruct his player, he can do that. My view is that is his job.

[/B][/QUOTE]Speak loud enough so the coach can hear you? I report the warning to the scorer to be logged, and then I go right to the coach and make sure that that he knows that his team is being warned for delay. That's one of the official's general duties under rule 2-7-10.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay. . . [/B][/QUOTE]

Isn't there a minimum heigth requirement to be a lumberjack?:

[/B][/QUOTE]5'2". Chuck just makes it. In his heels.

<i>I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspenders and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie
just like my dear Papa."</i>

Speak loud enough so the coach can hear you? I report the warning to the scorer to be logged, and then I go right to the coach and make sure that that he knows that his team is being warned for delay. That's one of the official's general duties under rule 2-7-10. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,
I know that by the language of the rule I should be informing the coach separately after I report the warning to the scorer, but I don't. I can't really defend why I do it simultaneously, other than it is faster, easier, and I am sure that the coach knows that his team has been warned.
Of course, technically my way is incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out for all forum members who want to do it by the book.
My point, however, was that I say nothing to the player. The book doesn't instruct us to, and it seems that you don't either. That is the coach's job.

I know that by the language of the rule I should be informing the coach separately after I report the warning to the scorer, but I don't. I can't really defend why I do it simultaneously, other than it is faster, easier, and I am sure that the coach knows that his team has been warned.
Of course, technically my way is incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out for all forum members who want to do it by the book.
My point, however, was that I say nothing to the player. The book doesn't instruct us to, and it seems that you don't either. That is the coach's job.

[/B][/QUOTE]I tell the head coach because I do <b>not</b> want to ever hear <i>"Why didn't you tell me that there was a warning issued? If I hadda known, I woulda told my players."</i> I just take nothing for granted. Takes an extra 10 or 15 seconds, at the most.

As for the player, I will say to them something like <i>"That's a warning for not staying in-bounds, # whatever. If you do it again, it's a T".</i> That's "preventive" enough for me, and doesn't take long. If they do have a reasonable question then, I will answer it too.

you are there to make the call. If it is a 9 year old game, the question you asked has merit - they are just learning the game. For a HS varsity age player, make your calls and move on - you aren't their coach, you aren't there to teach them.
Hawks Coach SO if a varsity player asks me about a rule, I simply reply go ask your coach, its his job to know the rules. IMHO that is one of the mindsets that coaches have that needs to change. Yes coaches have a tremendous responsibilty of teaching a player and role modeling. However the concept of "Mr. Official don't you talk to my player I'm his coach" sends a terrible message. We have things on the court that occur that we need to deal with. Respect the fact that that happens. As an official we need to communicate with the players and build positive relationships with them. We don't need to teach them X'x and O's by any means. But rules and situations that allow the game to move better and prevent situations from occuring needs to be communicated. Officals also need to be positive role models for players. The above attitude prepetuates the player/coach against the offfical attitude. Your players have certain officials they like/dislike why? Calling a good fair game in their eyes certainally helps, but I'll bet officials who communicate with them and help them though situations, instead of just calling the game also leads to a more positive relationship

If you're coming out of a dead ball situaton, especially a time out, this is very bad advice. Verbally tell the player and strongly signal either spot or endline.

That's the way to do it
 

JR - that's precisely how it should be handled. This area is a pet peeve of mine, because so many refs have their own personal way of dealing with it. Do it by the book, and make the first warning an official warning - coach and table informed, player informed as a courtesy, and just how you said you do it.

Interesting, whenever I've called this, I've assumed the players know what I called. Only when the coach has asked me to tell the players have I done so.

Rickref,
Coach never said we can't answer questions to his players. I would agree that we shouldn't be volunteering rules interpretations or clinics during a game, however. While I get a little miffed by the attitude I get from players, I'd never consider taking action against a kid for (quite probably) biting his tongue.
While the first "do you understand" was likely reflexive, the second was unnecessary. I guarantee he'll understand if you have to whack him on the ensuing throwin.
Footlocker, you asked how to handle it differently. Besides a T, I don't see any tools available for you, and I definitely think that's over and beyond reasonable (as you apparently do as well). I think you handled it well.

Here here.

I am glad that my sister, almost 12 years younger than I am, was brought up properly and knows how to treat people. There is a discerning growing lack of respect amongst the public.

HawksCoach- you’re right about one thing (not which perspective I view things from)- I should have pointed out the plane and handed the ball without asking him if he understood. I admitted that in the original post. "Turn the page coach." Sometimes as officials, we are in a situation to talk to players. And coaches should encourage players to be respectful in those situations. Period. I chose to do nothing and get the ball in play. If you want to get worked up as a coach and see this as the referee’s problem then, as previously stated, you’re part of the problem and not the solution. If the kid was so worked up internally that he bit his lip to keep from being inappropriate- then good for him.

You were in the military right? Imagine if your supervisor asked you a direct question. You just stare at him with your jaw clenched and don’t answer because you didn’t like that he asked you if you knew something that you did know. He repeats it and you pull the same silent reply. If he is irked, it’s probably his failure to see things from <i>your</i> perspective.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Quote:

I am simply saying that refs shouldn't be looking to T a player for having an attitude they don't like when they make a call.

I didn’t T him and wouldn’t. Where are you getting this <B>looking</B> business? If I were looking for a T, believe me, he would have had it.

Yeah, thanks. I did nothing because I felt that anything I would have done would only draw more attention to me than the player and his attitude. Unwanted attention at that. My choosing to get on with the game without doing something seemed to condone it and, I didn't want any further problems because I just allowed the kid to disrespect me.

The lesson here is clear. Get the ball in play and no questions unless absolutely necessary.

I understand your dilemma. My feeling is that they can silently disrespect me all they want. They're 15-18, they're going to do that. As long as they don't disobey direct requests such as "throw me the ball, 21," or "turn around so I can see your number," I much prefer silence to most of the alternatives.

I should probably just keep my mouth shut but are you telling us that you consider YOUR relationship with a basketball player the same as the relationship between a soldier and his superior??

Thank you Dan. My thoughts exactly. Soldier - superior relationship is not the same as the ref - player relationship. Also, ref-player relationship is not the same as a coach-player relationship.

As for Rick, as was stated above, you can answer questions from players. where I think a line was crossed is a ref to me appears to be lecturing or talking down to a HS age player. That should not be done in this circumstance.

As for my comments about the player. Lets take this player, who has issues with attitude. Yesterday he played a game, said something to a ref using his attitude, and he got Td. His coach (me) says don't talk to refs - see what happens? Today you start in on him with what he takes as an insult - this "do you understand" line of reasoning. He is clearly po'd and knows from experience that he is best off not saying anything. Is he wrong?

I hate having to ask this . . .

A player's perspective
 

This is a fascinating forum. I found this site today looking online for rules for the basketball driveway game of 21, because the group of guys I play with all come from different regions and we all knew different rules! I am neither coach or referee, but was a basketball player up to freshman junior-varsity level.

Anyway, getting to the point here, I definitely feel like that player’s lack of response was acceptable and did not rob the referee of any respect he deserves.

As was pointed out, the relationship between player and referee at that level is not like a parent and child, superior officer and subordinate, or even coach and player. The relationship and respect given and taken between player and referee, to me, is MUCH closer to that of opposing players: Professional respect within the bounds of the rules of the game, but nothing more, especially if the player is loosing horribly. And with my perspective comes the corollary: The referee should equally respect the players, which I don’t feel was completely done here.

I feel like in this particular situation if the referee was trying to help the player, the respectful and helpful thing for the referee to do would be to have explained his call, “I issued the delay of game warning for you crossing the inbound line” and leave it at that.

When you speak to him as a command “Make sure you don’t come across this line” and then follow that with a patronizing, “understand?”, and then the final “Do you understand?”, to me instantly tells the player a few things: 1)You don’t respect him and in fact, 2) you expect his deference to you as something more like an parent/coach/superior officer and perhaps even 3) you are angry you aren’t getting it.

Overall, I think there are a dozen nuanced ways a player could respond “yes, I understand” and probably only one of those would have NOT resulted in a technical, given his state of mind.

I agree with the coach who recommended his players not engage with the referee in tense situations like that.

As a coach, if my player did respond rudely and was T'd, I'd not only get on him, but let the referee have it for what would appear to me as baiting him into a response.

Since Daryl and I are leaving for Hartford, CT, on Friday morning to officiate in the Starters Girls' Spring Classic, I thought that I should respond again before I leave.


Mick stated: "Many socio-economic-environmental factors may come into play. The kid may know better; perhaps he may not. The kid may have been taught to react better; perhaps, he was not."

I refuse to accept Mick's conclusion. The player in the original post is 17. This young man does know what are good manners. Just ten days after the Columbine shootings, I was substitute teaching an 8th grade math class at East Toledo Jr. H.S. (a jr. H.S. in the Toledo Public School District). We live in the TPS Dist. and my wife and I are very active within the school dist. including sitting on many committees, so I have a very good insight into our school district. East Toledo Jr. H.S. has a reputation as being the worst jr. H.S. in the district for student behavior and I can tell you that its students are some of the worst behaving students in the school district. And there is a very good reason for that. The school principal refuses to demand appropriate behavior from her students. A case in point: On the next-to-last day of my assignment, a student made a death threat against me. This student was instantly removed from the building and was eventually suspended from school for the rest of the school year (big deal, he got a 4 mon. summer vacation instead of a 3 mon. vacation and was still promoted to the 9th grade). The principal was very upset about the situation, but not because the student made a death threat against me, but because after telling him to put a non-school book away three times, but because I took the book away after he refused to follow my instructions to put the book away. Her excuse was that she does not require her students to exhibit good behavior because they have not been taught good manners at home. I was speechless that a school administer would make such a statement to a tax paying, registered voter parent of two students in the school district, but this is the type of incompetent administrators that we have to put up with in some of our schools. She made these statements in a hearing that she called because she wrote me up because she felt that I provoked the student by taking the book from him.

There is no excuses for bad behavior. I will not tolerate foul language the players in the men's and women's college games I officiate. Why? The fact that a person is attending college means that he/she is a situation that requires civilized behavior and the fact that they are athletes does not give them a reason to conduct themselves at a lower level than the non-athlete members of the student body. I only have to say "sugar" once after hearing somebody say "sh#t" and the players get the idea that I expect a high level of behavior from them. I have never had a player complain to me about my behavior requirments. Many times the player apologizes and agrees with me that foul language has no place in a college basketball game.

If a person conducts him/herself in a civilized manner and accepts nothing less than civilized behavior from other people, then other people will get the idea and act accordingly.

Well it is getting late and I have a lot to do tomorrow (actually later today), so everybody have a good weekend. See you all Tuesday morning.

MTD, Sr.

Mark...

(1) Your Jr. High story is good, but as for applying it to the ball game, it's a bit of a stretch.

(2) At the varsity level and beyond, the less we have to say to the players and coaches the better. HC, JR, and Dan are right - tell him to watch the plane, and leave it. Less is more.

(3) How can you T the kid when it was YOU who initiated what could easily have been construed as a confrontational remark - HC is right, asking a player "do you understand" is basically asking him "I think you're stupid".

(4) A "T" is supposed to make the game better. There is no way you will ever convince me a T here would have made things better. All you would have done is make yourself look like a pompous, arrogant, jackDexter (sorry Mark, you've started a trend!)

I agree with everything you said about expecting a standard of behaviour from kids. But if you look objectively, without your biases, you will see that this situation is NOT the same thing.

Good luck this weekend!

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.

Coach the fact is that only referees know the rules. You should know that by now! How could we expect that a coach know the rules? how could we expect that a coach knows his players and knows what they do and say on the floor.? This is just impossible!!!

I have never called a T on a player, then told the coach why, and the coach says" yeah it figures", yanks the kid from the game and lectures him. Never happens

Face it, in all my years of refereeing I have never met a coach who actually taught me anything. I have never learned a thing about basketball from a coach. The only people who truly understand the game are us referees. Referees are never arrogant, always approachaable, and communcate appropriately every single game. In fact I know I there was a stretch there ( nearly 13 months) I did not make a bad call, nor did I miss one. I cant believe that we would ever make a mistake. The rules are clear, there is no room for interpretation or judgement.

and worse than all of this is the referees who actaully would believe all this.

We have too many officials who wont listen to a coach because a coach provides the coaching perspective... Go figure-

Keep up you insights! Does not matter if you ever stepped out on a floor and ever reffed a game. never has-never will!

Kelvin
You forgot that I never have had any discussions with refs, or that in empty quiet gyms you still can't hear what those crafty guys say to your players cause they're really good at concealing things from coaches. In fact, that's what most refs practice when they aren't studying the rules that they know better than me.

Actually, you really didn't miss too many calls on your last tour of duty, now did you :)

I'm sorry if you took what I said that way. I commend you on the ability to ever remain calm after giving instructions and then having your team do the opposite. That would drive me crazy!
I don't know what points you would like me to address. I think there is a time to talk and a time to use the whistle. I wouldn't give a T in this situation but I would shut up and let the player hang him/herself or it will blow over and the game will end. I have even asked for a sub before instead of tossing someone with one T already. What might seem harsh in words is not really that bad in action. I'm on a mission for the perfect game. Playerwise and what the officiating crew does too. I don't get off on ignoring coaches with questions or players with attitudes. That is not what it is about. When coaches complain they really don't know that cheating is so far out of our minds that it is silly to even say. If I never gave another T or had another altercation with a player or coach I would be fine with it. But, the fact is I will call the game the way I was trained and have learned to call the game whether it is popular or not.
I honestly did not mean to offend you but sometimes your posts cause me to remember that right now you think like a coach most of the time. I have played as recently as last month in an over-30 league and I thought like a player. It is just a different mindset thats all. Things I would say in a discussion in player mode I would not say in a discussion in ref mode. Does one help the other? Absolutely, but they must remain apart.
Again, I'm sorry if I offended you. That is not what this is about.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

I believe that you are unfairly helping the inbounding team.

I don't point this out to the inbounding team until the defense has also taken the floor. Furthermore, my signal can be seen by the whole gym: defense, offense, partner, and coaches.

It's good for the game and I have been told by my association to do so. If you want to live in your rulebook only, or if your association doesn't require this, then do as you please. (or do as you please anyway.)

I'll continue this practice till I'm instructed to stop.

I have NEVER been told by any evaluator not to remind the thrower that they can run the endline, or that they're on the spot. I HAVE been told many, many times that it's good game management, and a sign of being a good communicator.

Unfairly helping the offensive team? :rolleyes:

I always point this out, whether there's pressure or not. Even if the offense is the only side who hears it, it's not unfair since I do it for both teams when applicable. It's no more an unfair advantage than pointing out the spot on a spot throwin.

Nevada, paragraph #219 in the Officials' Manual says that "The spot for the throw-in should be designated by the administering official."

Maybe this is debatable, but it seems to me that if you designate the spot before every throw-in, you either designate one spot (point to the floor) or indicate that it's not a designated spot throw-in.

Thoughts?

You're kidding, right? It's our JOB to designate a spot and communicate it. It's our job to tell the thrower in that he has a designated spot or can run the endline.

I've never, NEVER met a top official who didn't do this. Heck, on a timeout we'll communicate this information to the benches.

Besides, all our games are filmed now. I want that film to show I've designated a spot or communicated that the thrower-in can run the line. Why would you want to be put in a position to have to make that call?

Evey good official I know designates that you can run the endline when you are coming out of a TO (and that is really the only sitch where you need to do this). If they don't, and we have the ball coming in, I will make sure he knows that we can run the endline, just so we don't get hosed with a bad whistle. Of course, that has never happened ;) .

It's pretty hard to offend me - I take everything for what it's worth. But let's be clar - I was more put off by your strong hints that I don't know what's going on on the floor because I am a coach and confined to the sideline than by any suggestion that I bring a coach's perspective to the forum. Your post connected the two thoughts, indicating that not only do I bring a coach's perspective, but that such a perspective is by its nature uninformed. It is that aspct of your post that I take issue with.

Of course I bring a coach's perspective, although I would also argue it is a bit broader than that of a coach during a game trying to win that game. I don't come here like some to whine about how the refs hosed me. I don't come here trying to win a game - that is the coach or player's perspective during a game. A good coach after the game is very self-critical, evaluates every aspect of the game, and determines how to improve based on that evaluation.

I also spend a good deal of time watching games in which I have no stake in order to learn, probably more than many refs (not all, but many - you guys clearly spend a lot of time watching and improving!). So you aren't offended, I also watch more games than many of my fellow coaches, and more than most players. And I observe all aspects of the game, including how it is officiated. You learn more from watching officials in games where you don't care what the calls are than in games where you have a bias.

So it is right to say I have a coach's perspective, but the thoughts you tie to that idea are what matters most. At times, you come off sounding like it is a perspective you can disregard with a "consider the source" type of attitude. And it doesn't really offend me, but it will draw a response when I feel a post challenges my authority or credibility (the latter being far more important, IMO).

partly answered my own question
 

After doing some research in the officials manual, if found the following:
223 on page 32 and in 335 on page 63
Reminders: ... Use the proper signal to indicate running the end line privileges are in effect when the clock has been stopped.

Checking the signal chart on page 91, one sees that signal number 18 is the proper one to use.

So, I will now give this signal in these situations, but I still will not verbally announce anything or tell the player that he may run with my voice, unless he specifically asks me. It is only the verbal to which I object.

To answer those who have said that announcing the running priviledge helps both the offense and the defense, I would say that the defense doesn't derive any benefit from this because: if the offensive player runs the defense simply follows him; if it was permitted, no problem; if it wasn't then play is stopped for the violation.
Have you ever seen a defender stand still based on the rationale that he didn't think the offensive player could run on that throw-in? If he does stand it is more likely that he thought the offense could never move on any throw-in. Either way it is poor coaching, not poor officiating.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Apr 16th, 2004 at 09:35 PM]

Re: partly answered my own question
 

I'm not motivated enough to go back & check but I don't recall anyone saying to "announce" anything. Having said that, I personally make it a habit to tell the player throwing in whether or not he can run the line and the defender to not violate the line before each throw-in I administer. And I never expect a reply from either BTW.

FWIW.

Hmmm. Let me see.... Delay of game warning. Then you have to repeat a question to the player which DELAYS the game further. Guess what? 2nd delay of game. Technical foul. Plain and simple.

Re: partly answered my own question
 

Nevadaref, I can think of two instances where it would be an advantage for the defense to know if the basline can be ran. I've seen plays where the offense will set a screen on the endline and the inbouder will run the baseline in hopes that the defender will run the screener over. I've also seen a play where a second offensive player will go behind the endline and a pass will be made along the endline out of bounds, legal only when the baseline is allowed to be run. In this instance the defender of player 2 stepping out of bounds reached across the plane defending the pass and recieved a T for it. If the defense is aware that the endline can be ran, they could mentally prepare for such situations.

Hmmmm. Let me see. . . no.

Re: Re: partly answered my own question
 

You're right Rick, and this is an advantage defense SHOULD have. They have a right to know what the overall situation is, so that they CAN plan accordingly. That's our job.