I was just thinking again about a situation I witnessed earlier this year. I sat in on the pre-game and post-game with the varsity crew, which is how I know some of what the officials were thinking.

It was a close game and the visiting team has a howler monkey coach. He's all over one official in particular, and getting near the line. In an attempt to not T the coach, the official adopts a policy of not talking to that coach. This just angers the coach further, BTW. The coach, of course, then loudly demands to talk to the official's partner. :rolleyes:

After a foul call this coach finally crosses the line and gets a T from the first official. During the reporting of the foul and the T, the other official has been talking to the home teach coach about the call and now goes to talk to the visiting team coach and attempts to calm him down.

After the game, while his partner was in the shower, the first official asked me what I thought about it, and I said that in my opinion his partner should have never gone to talk to the visiting team coach after the T, that I felt it was disloyal. He admitted that he had felt the same way.

When the other official returned, he joined the discussion and told us that what he was trying to do was give both coaches equal time. As he put it, "I let the home teach coach have a piece of me, I figured I'd better let the other coach have a piece as well."

I can see how both viewpoints could be valid. While I would be inclined to back my partner by not talking to the coach, the second official is well-respected with a lot of state championships under his belt. Translated that means: knows a LOT more about dealing with coaches than I.

My question is this: which do you think is more important, crew loyalty or giving both coaches equal time? Does it have to be one or the other? If you had been on the crew that night, what would you have wanted to have happen?

Yes.

:-p

I think you have to do both. Ignoring coaches only works for so long. In a situation like this, talking to just the home coach would really have gotten the visiting coach steamed even more, possibly getting himself run out of the building.

The non-calling official has to be responsive to both coaches, has to back up what his partner did, and not appear to favor either coach - yet another reason why a 3-person crew is ideal.

BITS, I've never got into a jackpot in my life over something I DIDN'T say during a game.The only talking I do is a warning, followed by whatever I need to do- dependant on how that warning is received. I'll listen though, or answer a question.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 13th, 2004 at 03:51 PM]

Huh ?
 

There are a millions ways to interpret what really happened.
Do you write test questions for NFHS ? :)
mick

Re: Huh ?
 

Drat! You caught me. I was polishing a question for next year's Part II exam. Here's your opportunity to have input into the correct answer ;)

The situation was shortly after a discussion we had here about being loyal to your partner and NOT talking to a coach after your partner Ts him (no good cop, bad cop). That discussion made a lot of sense to me. But I'll be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn about dealing with coaches. This second official obviously felt that giving this coach equal time was the right thing. I honestly don't know what to think.

My question is simple. Did it calm the coach down? Did the coach get a 2nd T?

The non-calling official SHOULD go talk to the T'd coach, because he has to sit and that should be the non-calling officials job.

Talking to a coach is not disloyal it is game management.

I agree, blindzebra. I'm not sure I understand the "disloyal" charge. Do you honestly think your partner is over there saying, "I know, coach, I thought it was a bad call, too. I definitely wouldn't have T'd you up for arguing about it."?
I'm honestly confused by this dichotomy.

Re: Re: Huh ? YU.P.
 

Back In The Saddle,
If the coach "needs" someone to listen to him, then I'll go over and listen. But, I think it is very important to say something very calm and generic like, "YU.P., I understand what you are saying coach."
If he wants to go further, then we have the tools to send further.
mick

My partner and I have an excellent system in place for when a coach gets T'd up. The calling official adminsiters and the other official talks to the offending coach, explaining the T if it was on a player, if it was on a coach, the non-calling official will explain how he wants the coach to behave for the rest of the game, i.e. "coach by rule you must remain seated for the remainder of the game, and any further unsporting actions will no longer be tolerated from anyone on your bench... It actually works really well. I don't feel its being disloyal unless their talking about you when your partner is talking to the coach.

It is not disloyal if they are talking about you, as long as it is not crossing the line. Part of the reason to go over to "notify" the coach is to let them vent and get things under control.

Now if this venting takes longer then it takes to shoot the free throws or it is full of hystrionics then your partner needs to take care of business.

Speaking of this, what do you do if the coach does something that would always warrant a foul and your partner who is standing right next to him does nothing. I had this situation, and I called the T from the other side of the court. I had to take some flack with the "why did u call it, wasn't it her call?" crap, but I feel it was the right call. How would you guys handle a similar situation.

I disagree! Assuming that the coach deserved a T, the coach and everyone else knows what he did for the T. It should not need any further explaination. I will go say "coach you must remain seated for the rest of the game" and then the coach gets to see what my back looks like. I expect the same from my partners and this is always part of my pre-game. There is not reason to console a coach as long as you are giving him a deserved T. Nothing shady, you earned it you got it and everyone knows why. You must remain seated. It has been my experience, in 5 states, that coaches fall under three catagories when T'd: 1. The coach who has lost control and even his own fans think he deserved a T 2. The coach who got excited and got a T. He knows why and he will leave it alone 3. The manipulator. He wants to divide and conquer or at least take up some of your time. You talk to #1 and he will do something for the 2nd T. #2 doesn't want to talk because he knows the deal. You talk to #3 and he got you where he wants you. You just messed up because know he will think you are the weak one and he will be in your ear.

For the record, I will say something to a coach if my partner gives him a T. It will only take about 8 seconds and I will move on. All this applies if the T is credible. If not, we have other problems.
This is my view point. It works for me and I will continue to do things this way. At this point, this will be in my pre-game whether I'm the R or not. If something is done and I think my partner is doing everything except rubbing the coach's back after I T him/her up I will let my partner know about it.
Without seeing any responses, this is something we can agree to disagree on. It is what it is and that is the way it will be.

tomegun, I appreciate your perspective on this. This is something I don't really understand, but I would comply with a partner who stated his/her wishes in pregame. My conversations with coaches have always been short and sweet. I answer questions (legitimate ones) and move on. If I ever get asked why my partner gave him a T, the simple answer would be, "You were closer to the action than I was, coach."

This is interesting, and I think it's going to depend on the personality of each set of partners. I'll be honest, I think the priority is to maintain a good relationship with your partner, and if your partner thinks a prolonged conversation with a coach is disloyal, I'd recommend not doing it. I've never been in either position, as I've never had to T a coach, but I'm glad to have had this converstation to look back on.

I have a question for you. Would you make any other call in front of your partner when he passed on something in his area? I think the same thing applies here.

And if I was your partner, I would have given you "crap" as well. Let me take care of it, I am standing right there. If I think his actions or words warrants a T, then I will handle it. Maybe I decided to pass on it based on what I said to the coach? It not only looks bad, but it suggests you do not trust your partner and the decisions you make. That is just bad business if you ask me. But then again, you asked. ;)

Peace

Re: Re: Huh ?
 

Only the NFHS could have a seven paragraph question with a true false answer.

If you don't want to discuss your philosophy then why bring it up.

What I, and others, have brought up is not about explaining or coddling a coach it is about game management.
If I call a T, my partner goes to tell the coach he/she has a seatbelt then they stay at the division line to watch the players and I'll take care of the free throws.

This gives the coach 30 seconds or so to say whatever to calm down or to earn another T. Most coaches want to be heard and then they calm down, if not they'll get tossed.

In 13 years of officiating my partners and I have tossed about 3 coaches, considering we have called at least 15 times that many T's, I think that maybe our philosophy works.

I have no real love for coaches, but I don't think you can make a blanket statement about how all coaches behave.

tomegun
If you go over there namby pamby with the manipulater, he will be in your ear. If you go over there and tell Mr. Manipulater that your partner just Td him and it's time to take a seat, I don't think he is going to think he somehow has a sympathetic ear, even if you heard a couple things he said before sitting him down. It really just depends on how you communicate, and it sounds like you don't trust your partners to communicate effectively with the coaches.

Blindzebra, in 10 years officiating I have yet to throw a coach out. That is 0 coaches tossed! I rarely even give coaches Ts. So I think what I'm saying works.

Hawkscoach, your suggested conversation with a coach is the maximum I would do.
ref: "coach, you must remain seated for the rest of the game"
coach: "what did I do to deserve a T?" or "c,mon that wasn't something he/she should have T'd me up for"
ref: "OK coach, if my partner decides to and gets a chance he/she will explain it to you"

How long would that take, 10 seconds? Then they see my back. If a T is warranted, what could a coach possibly be saying that we should be listening to? Really, can someone give me an example of what a coach could say to me after my partner gives the coach a T the coach deserves? I think we have to start giving these coaches more credit. They know what they are doing and they know what officials are weak and what officials are strong. During other parts of the game I will talk, I stress talk, to a coach all the time. We are a team. A member of our team gives a coach a T and the immediate information that coach needs is "coach you must remain seated for the rest of the game." Anything else is extra and part of our game management should be to remain a crew and stay on the same page. I would really like someone to tell me what the purpose of extra conversation would be. If the coach is going to do something to get a second T then so be it. I haven't had this happen to me so I will do what works for me. And it does work well.

Blindzebra,<p> "in 10 years officiating I have yet to throw a coach out. That is 0 coaches tossed! I rarely even give coaches Ts. So I think what I'm saying works."</p>
There was a long thread on game management that sounded just like your quote. I don't think anyone got anywhere with either side of the discussion with the, "I am right because I haven't T'd anyone up." line vs. the "I am right because I don't let coaches walk all over me, which you obviously do" line.

I do your like method of dealing with a T'd coach,
<p>It should not need any further explaination. I will go say "coach you must remain seated for the rest of the game" and then the coach gets to see what my back looks like.</p>

Atta boy!
 

Tomegun,

I am with you all the way! You want to move to the Indianapolis area to ref with me? I can't agree more with anyone else's opinions than I do with yours. The only thing I might alter slightly is the amount of listening I'd do when I went over to tell the coach about his/her seatbelt rule.

You are absolutely right when saying that the coaches know what they are doing...and they are trying to find a "friend" on our officiating crew when they want to "discuss" their T. Nope...sorry! No friend here! I'm NOT an enemy...but I'm not a friend either. I'm the rules arbitrator of the game...just trying to keep peace the best I can...and trying to call the game the best I can.

If the coach wants to be friends...then he can see me after the game. We can talk at length about anything he wants to...AFTER THE GAME.

Re: Atta boy!
 

First, if you adjust the amount of listening, you DON'T agree with him you are agreeing with me.

Show me how what I said was a conversation. I said, "The non-calling official tells the coach to sit and stays at the division line and watches the players." If the coach wants to use this time to talk it out to calm down, fine. If they want to act like an idiot, they'll get another T from the other official, the height of crew "loyalty".

Second, if a coach is trying to manipulate you by getting a sympathetic ear, I sure hope you don't have that team again after that at length conversation after the game!

I agree with Tomegun, let the non calling official give the coach the bad news on the seatbelt rule and move on. I was told at a clinic the coach will probably say something, let it him have that as his last words, he needs to save a little face in front of his team. Give him the I hear ya and head off to half court.

So, I guess you are one of these "strong" officials. Show me one example where I said conversation.

I said," That the non-calling official tells the coach to sit then stays at the division line to watch the players." You know I tell him to sit then he gets to see what my back looks like! You make it sound like we go over to the bench, put our arms around them and give them a hug.

How is doing what we should do, notifying the coach and observing the players, not being on the same page?

My face to face conversation with the coach lasts from 5-10 seconds. Time that and you will see a lot can be said in a respectful manner during that time. After that I will observe players. It will be obvious to everyone that I'm observing players and not holding a conversation with the coach!
Blindzebra, I'm really not trying to be funny, can you tell me what the conversation is between you and the coach during those free throws? I mean, what is he saying and what are you saying besides telling him about sitting down? I just don't get it. Long, drawn out, up-close conversations with coaches just don't look good, especially to your partner that could be wondering "I gave this coach a T, what could my partner possibly be saying/explaining (consoling) to the coach?" If you keep it short, sweet and move on (observe the players which you can't do while you are facing the coach) then we agree. Anymore conversation and we don't agree. I think you referred to me as being one of those "strong" officials. Thank you. I want to be a strong official. Most of the coaches I've dealt with have more respect for a strong official in the long term than they do a weak official.

Indy_ref, I would love to work some games in my home state. I'm from Richmond and it is a dream to work in the Tiernan Center. Do you have any tournaments this summer?

You are not grasping what I'm saying, this is NOT face to face, and it is NOT a conversation, it is a monologue by the coach for the purpose of venting.

I'm not thinking about what my partner is doing because I trust my partner and I know he has my back.

As for being strong or weak, I don't see anything weak about being approachable, I don't see anything weak about finding a way to control a bad situation and trying to not make it worse.

[Edited by blindzebra on Apr 14th, 2004 at 05:36 PM]

I think the part that confuses me is the mistrust between partners. In general, if I see a partner talking with a coach who is obviously miffed at me, I trust that my partner has my back; at least until I get concrete evidence to the contrary. Are we that paranoid? :confused:

BINGO!!!
 

My thoughts exactly - well said.

I agree with Hawks Coach. I also assume that my partner(s) have my back, unless I am shown something different later. I think this a subject that needs to be thoroughly discussed in pre-game before a game on how to handle situations like this.

For me, I do not care if my partner made the worst call in the world, or called the worst game of his officiating career on a given night, but I am going to have his back all the way for the entire night no matter how bad it gets.

You "live", "work together" as a crew....you "die" and "suffer" as a crew.

Good point, John. Those of us who work with different partners throughout a season are best served by discussing issues with the assignor rather than sympathizing with a coach. That said, I assume my partner feels the same way, and will give the benefit of the doubt.
Would a long conversation look funny in this situation? Absolutely, but I'm still going to give my P the benefit of the doubt here. I'll ask him what was said, but not confrontationally. More out of curiosity, and to gain better awareness of the situation.

Ray, what I want to know is who the teams and officials were. That could have a lot to do with how things got handled.

You guys are making my point exactly. We are a team and we should have each other's back. I do not give out T's all willy nilly. Also, I pre-game a short conversation between the 2 or 3 of us between the whistle and reporting to calm the situation and make sure we administer it correctly. So, my partners will know what I have at that point. Since the coach really did something to deserve it and my partner knows this what conversation should go on? "Coach you must remain seated for the rest of the game." Much more than that isn't needed and it looks bad. A coach sees another coach get T'd by one ref and the other ref is over there being Dr. Ruth for him:D Why? He knows what he did. You tell him he has to sit and he knows what he has to do. I can't think of anything else that should be discussed unless the coach wants to vent and you want to listen, heck NO! If my partner gives you a T you deserve, you can cry a river but you will not have my shoulder to lean on.
All this is for a credible T of course and this is only for a Technical foul situation. I want to make that clear. I don't care about discussions with the coaches during the course of the game as long as our focus it there. Those discussions during the game can keep us out of a lot of trouble. So, I'm approachable but I will not sacrifice my relationship with my partner to give the appearance to anyone, and I mean even one person, in the facility that I'm the "good cop" after a T.
I read some posts again. The benefit of the doubt is a two way street. If you give him a T I will give you the benefit of the doubt that he deserved it and I don't need to go over there and "I know, I know" him.
If it is a monologue by the coach then he can have it by him/herself while I observe the players. IMHO a weak official is one who comes a runnin whenever the coach says "hey ref" no matter how obsurd the situation. I've been told that a T should be used to make your game better so I don't see how this is a bad situation and not talking to a coach makes it worse. Maybe we should use the T a little more wisely so it is a useful tool instead of a weapon of mass destruction :D

[Edited by tomegun on Apr 14th, 2004 at 06:57 PM]

A monologue by definition is by himself. You seem to be stuck on one thing when EVERYONE else has said we are not at the bench and it is not a conversation. In fact your procedure and my procedure in this situation is identical, where we differ is I have no problem with my partner talking to, or listening to a coach after I call a T.

This thread was about whether it was disloyal to the crew to do so.

I don't see a problem with answering a coach's question if the coach asks it courtiously, as officials we must be approachable and it's when we ignore coaches that trouble begins. If the coach disagrees with a call, let him know when you pass him up the floor that you hear him and if he asks for a simple explanation without being demonstrative, we should give it to him. I don't think the technical is a dramatic tool at all as there is a right way and a wrong way for players and coaches to conduct themselves on the floor. It's not our place as officials to be standoffish, but it is one of our duties to effectively manage a game and sometimes that means talking to coaches. A general rule that I use with coaches is that I will respond to questions, but I won't acknowledge opinions or comments with a discussion, or I'd be willing to discuss the play further if the coach calls TO. Failure to acknowledge coaches in my opinion leads to further problems, however given the situation at hand, sometimes addressing a coach can backfire and lead to further confrontation.

Earlier this school year there was a long thread regarding mechanics when a coach gets whacked. And your post is a very good one. The officiating crew is a team, and when a coach gets a technical foul, one of the non-calling officials has to take care of business doing the things that you discuss in your post. The worst thing that can happen is that a coach gets a technical foul and none of the non-calling officials does nothing and the calling official then attempts to do the things that you discuss in your post.

MTD, Sr.

I agree with your post except after a T. Like I said in previous posts, I will talk to a coach all night long if it is respectful both ways and it doesn't effect my focus. We cannot interrupt the game for every little comment a coach makes or else a coach will recognize the fact that he has you.
Also, I will inform the coach that he/she must remain seated for the remainder of the game. Any long monologue after that will probably be heard because we must hear things but he/she will say this while my back is to them observing players. Maybe the problem is nobody on this board has seen what I'm talking about, and that is good. It just doesn't look good if an official is listening to a coach for a long time. Actually this applies for most of the game. An extended up-close-and-personal with a coach does not look good. I'm all for teamwork and it is good to use certain procedures in certain situations. But there are many negatives and few positives that can occur when you have a discussion like this with one coach.
This thread is about loyalty. My opinion is talking to a coach after a T, a credible T, does not show loyalty to your partner. Besides information about the seatbelt rule there really isn't much I have to say.

I asked this question before and it went ignored. Can someone tell me what is said to a coach or from a coach after a T other than information about the seatbelt rule? I hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears again. I would like to know actual experiences and not "what-ifs." Thank you.

Personally, I don't say <b>anything</b> to a coach other than telling them that they are seatbelted. If the coach does have a legitimate question and they ask it without putting on a show, I will answer him/her if I can- in 10 words or less. If they want a rule explained, I tell them to call a TO, or see me at an intermission or after the game. If the coach just wants to vent(which most of them do), they can vent to my back- and they'd better be sitting while they're venting too. If they cross <b>"my"</b> line while they're venting, then they'll get their 2nd T immediately- with no warning because the first T was their warning imo. As for talking to the other bench, unless there was also a quick, polite question being asked by the other head coach, I'd never dream of going anywhere near that bench. And again, all that they'd receive would be a very quick answer to their question. In my experience, when you've got an irate coach to deal with, the less said, the better. Hard to keep an argument going with only one person talking.

JR, where have you been hiding this post? I can live with what you just said entirely! I have no "except" to add. What you just said is what I'm talking about :)

P.S. Can someone tell me the keystrokes for something besides :) :( and :D ?

You'll find a link at the bottom of the page that says "Smilies." Click on it and it'll give you a list of them.

Here is a question
 

tomegun

How does talking to a coach after a non-credible T show loyalty? If we are partners threw good and bad, and in your opinion it is disloyal after a credible T, then it must be a punch in the nose offense, after the game, to do it after a non-credible T, right?

As I have said before, the only place we disagree is the loyalty issue. We have discribed the exact same procedure after a T.

Since you asked, try this, the non-calling official goes over and says, "Coach you lost the box and need to keep your seat." As NCO turns and goes toward the division line the coach says, " Sir, I've never gotten a T before, is there any times where I can stand up?" Legit question, asked in a respectful manor, is it disloyal to answer,or just good game mangement?

[Edited by blindzebra on Apr 15th, 2004 at 04:07 PM]

Re: Here is a question
 

Good point.

Re: Re: Here is a question
 

Thanks, if there is a weird situation that preceded the T I'm bringing both coaches together for any conversation.