Crew loyalty v. fairness to coaches (kinda long)

Back In The Saddle · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 02:30pm

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.

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?

Mark Dexter · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 02:49pm

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.

Jurassic Referee · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 02:49pm

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]

mick · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 02:55pm

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

mick

Back In The Saddle · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 03:10pm

Quote:

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

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.

Adam · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 03:15pm

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

blindzebra · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 03:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
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.

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?

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.

Adam · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 03:32pm

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.

mick · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
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.

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

ref18 · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 04:28pm

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.

blindzebra · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 04:41pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ref18
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.

ref18 · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 08:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

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. [/B]

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.

tomegun · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 08:25pm

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.

Adam · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 10:11pm

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.

JRutledge · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 13, 2004, 10:29pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ref18

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 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.

Quote:

Originally posted by ref18
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.

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