What do I tell the coach?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3


I have already clarified several times that the foot IS over the line. Why are you talking about angles and shoe curvature?

Why? Because you are worried about explaining something to a coach. That is why. And no matter what happen, that is at the very least my point.

Originally posted by Robmoz

I understand your opinion and respect refs who feel this way, but this post is not for you. I am speaking to refs who do selectively enforce, as the first post states.

[/B]

Not sure who you are speaking to and really is not the point. You are asking everyone here that decides to read this post. This my answer is not just for you either. It is for those that think they need to let coaches dictate what we say to them or what we do not say to them.

No matter what you do, they are still going to ask. If you make the call, the other coach might have a question for you. If you feel compelled to say something all the time, then you will do more explaining than officiating. You are looking for a magic bullet, when there is no such thang.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Robmoz
Don't call unless impacted the play? What about the lazy inbound that is made after a basket while the flow clearly has gone back down the court. Everyone in that end of the gym sees the violation, yet no impact on the "play", you let it go time and time again. Why, because you deemed it not necessary to the game? Puhleeeeeze,

Hmmmm, should I expound my "Big Deal" theory again? Nah, probably not.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

This is what many observers refer to as (pardon the indelicacy) "diarrhea of the mouth". The only thing that needs to be said when administering FTs is the number that will be shot.
[/B]

Come on, you honestly believe that diarrhea of the mouth BS. The refs that don't communicate (read as friendly reminders to players)tend to be prima donas. Ask ANY player if they oppose such chatter and I don't think you'll get a single vote. Granted, I am not advocating colorful long-winded exchanges between refs and players/coaches... BUT to be a stoic, 2-3 word sentence speaking, Queen's guard, stonefaced official can cause you some other problems down the road. Perhaps it is just a matter of style. I respect what works for you but as for me, pass the Pepto, I got something to say.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
As far as calling that toe on the line that doesn't affect the play, I like Camron's statement, "I've given your guys the benefit of the doubt too, Coach". [/B]

...benefit of the DOUBT....where is the doubt? You saw it, no doubt, call it. Isn't that one of the purposes of the rules - eliminate the doubt? Come on man, don't buy into that selective enforcement style, it is flawed.

BTW Chuck, I still love your responses but I love a good debate amongst our peers.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Robmoz

Don't call unless impacted the play? What about the lazy inbound that is made after a basket while the flow clearly has gone back down the court. Everyone in that end of the gym sees the violation, yet no impact on the "play", you let it go time and time again. Why, because you deemed it not necessary to the game? Puhleeeeeze, use judgement on judgement calls but call violations as they occur because THAT IS part of the game and I do not buy into the notion that such calls take away from the game. Do not start down a slippery slope of selective enforcement you will regret that you ever left your roots.

There's a key difference here, Rob. The original post describes a player on the arc with his toe on the line. It did not affect the play at all.
The lazy throw-in violation after the basket does affect the play. It has allowed them to get the ball in more quickly.
If you're not calling it, Rut's first response is probably best. "I didn't see it that way."
It looks to me like the question was posed to try to convince those who wouldn't make the call to do so, out of fear that the coach may have seen it. Rut's point is simple. We don't alter our judgment based on the coach's opinions.

No, whether his foot is on the line isn't necessarily a judgment call. But whether it warrants a violation is a judgment call.

Final advice, do what the assignors want. If they want this nit-picked, nit-pick it. If they want judgment, use it.

[footlocker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Not sure why they would "chip away" in such cases?!? Not if they have any clue what is happening in the game.

I think you answered your own question.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Final advice, do what the assignors want. If they want this nit-picked, nit-pick it. If they want judgment, use it. [/B]

Yes, the PC thing to do is appease your assignors for those who feel the need.

I will still strive towards excellence but will settle for a consistent comment from both coaches..."Good job ref!" in the event that I feel I am prostituting myself or being too self-critical.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Robmoz

Don't call unless impacted the play? What about the lazy inbound that is made after a basket while the flow clearly has gone back down the court. Everyone in that end of the gym sees the violation, yet no impact on the "play", you let it go time and time again. Why, because you deemed it not necessary to the game? Puhleeeeeze, use judgement on judgement calls but call violations as they occur because THAT IS part of the game and I do not buy into the notion that such calls take away from the game. Do not start down a slippery slope of selective enforcement you will regret that you ever left your roots.

If the ball is in the neighborhood of where the violation occurs (such as your throw-in vioaltion), I have no issue with you saying it impacted the play. I might even think that the lane divider needs to be called where othres do not. Free country. But 3 point line, nowhere near the ball, toe on the line, not making a play - please tell me how that impacts the play of the game. One inch of floor space that distance from the basket won't change a thing, unless a player is trying to gain an unfair advantage.

Again, you can clearly call this - it is a technical violation of the rules. But I see no compelling need to do to blow the whistle. Obviously you do, but you have nothing other than the rule book in your back pocket to fall back on for making this call. Many fine experienced refs differ with this opinion of yours, and provide cogent reasons for their opinion. Feel free to ignore them. But a strictly by the book philosophy usually leads you just as far astray as one that completely ignores the fact that a book exists. Call what needs to be called to make the game fair. And be consistent.

It's always finding a proper balance that allows you to succeed in life. And making appropriate judgments consistently makes for a good referee.

[BigGref]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3
What do you say when Coach A respectfully asks you if you saw the violation?

You: Did I see what?!?

[Adam]

Originally posted by Robmoz

Yes, the PC thing to do is appease your assignors for those who feel the need.

I will still strive towards excellence but will settle for a consistent comment from both coaches..."Good job ref!" in the event that I feel I am prostituting myself or being too self-critical. [/B]

Your acerbic wit isn't conducive to a decent debate. Just FYI.

The fact is you work for your assignors. My assignors are officials with decades of experience and built up trust. It's not "PC" to officiate the way your boss wants it done. As for prostituting yourself, I'm not sure what you mean other than some sophomoric attempt to belittle those who disagree with you.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with how my assignor thinks I reffed the game than how the coaches think I did. So, you go on ahead and try to please both of the coaches and I'll try to please the guy who gives me games.

[gsf23]

I think you guys have lost the whole point of the post. The poster didn't ask about a coach asking about something you disagree with. The post said that YOU see that the foot is on the line and you decide to pass on it. It wasn't a matter of you didn't think it was on the line. The foot was on the line, you saw it and you passed. Now the question is, after you pass on it and coach asks you about it, what do you say? It isn't a matter of a coach seeing something you didn't. You BOTH saw the SAME thing.

[Hawks Coach]

gsf
I don't think people generally missed the point. I think people are arguing over two things. If you pass, what do you say. And should you be in the position of passing anyway. Typical of most of our threads, the discussion has simply de-evolved (Are We Not Men?) from its original line of thought into other arguments.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Robmoz

Come on, you honestly believe that diarrhea of the mouth BS.
[/B]

On a free throw? I honestly do believe that "diarrhea of the mouth" is a fitting and apt term for what you advocate. I'm completely with Chuck on this one. There's no need at all for you to conduct a rules clinic on every FT. The lead simply saying the # of shots when he's administering FT's is the accepted mechanic, both in high school and college games. I've never heard of this particular mechanic being taught any other way, to be quite honest. You might warn a coupla players along the line if you feel that they specifically might be getting getting carried away in the blocking-out action, or maybe getting in a little quick, but there's absolutely no need for any generic warnings on every free throw for actions that haven't happened yet, and may never happen.

[rockyroad]

Who says we have to respond to the Coach at all??? Let him?her ask the question about that toe on the line - I certainly don't have to give them any response at all... that's an inconsequential part of the game - if they want to harp about that, let 'em...as Mick says - Get in, Get done, Get out.

And as far as big spiels before free throws, throw-ins, jump balls, or anything else - why??? Just gives more ammunition to someone to play the "he said" game and that's another headache no one needs...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Who says we have to respond to the Coach at all??? Let him?her ask the question about that toe on the line - I certainly don't have to give them any response at all... that's an inconsequential part of the game - if they want to harp about that, let 'em...as Mick says - Get in, Get done, Get out.

Just nodding your head without saying ANYTHING to acknowledge to the coach that you heard him can be an appropriate response too. Silence has never, ever got me in trouble as far as I can remember.