Ways not to call a tech

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
My general opinion is that I don't like lists like this for officiating. People are different and they will do things differently. For someone to tell others how to or how not to do such and such on a basketball court seems awfully presumptuous. You will attend many camps and get many DOs and DON'Ts from various officials. Take what you want, junk what you wish. In the end, you'll do it your way (or your assignor's way) anyway.


For example, I point out that the author states one reason for calling a technical foul is:
2. Using profanity or language that is abusive, vulgar or obscene.

However, not only is this a technical foul, but according to NFHS rules it is also flagrant. The words chosen by the list writer even match those in the definition.

4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be ... If technical, it involves ... extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the author is not advocating calling this flagrant. For many others, I'm sure that it would be.


PS And our esteemed author missed my favorite: The coach argues and is wrong about the rule. Not what happened on the play, not the judgment, just the plain and simple rule. = Whack!

I can't see that as an automatic, as described. The coach could very calmly question the rule application and you'd whack them?

If they are yelling, " That's not the rule, you got that wrong," across the court at us, then I'd be whackin' the coach right with ya, but that is not what you said.

[Edited by blindzebra on Jul 3rd, 2004 at 02:28 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I can't see that as an automatic, as described. The coach could very calmly question the rule application and you'd whack them?

If they are yelling, " That's not the rule, you got that wrong," across the court at us, then I'd be whackin' the coach right with ya, but that is not what you said.

[/B]

By definition, a technical foul is an unsporting foul, and every official has their own definition of exactly what "unsporting" is supposed to mean. In my experience, very few officials set the bar that high that simply questioning a call is deemed "unsporting". Very, very few. Too each their own, I guess though. To be quite honest, if one of my guys was this thin-skinned, I might suggest that another line of work might maybe be more appropriate for them- like possibly in a complaint department or sumthin':

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

By definition, a technical foul is an unsporting foul, and every official has their own definition of exactly what "unsporting" is supposed to mean. In my experience, very few officials set the bar that high that simply questioning a call is deemed "unsporting". Very, very few. Too each their own, I guess though. To be quite honest, if one of my guys was this thin-skinned, I might suggest that another line of work might maybe be more appropriate for them- like possibly in a complaint department or sumthin':
[/B]

To me it is the HOW they are questioning part that matters.
Like I said if it's calm and conversational, I've got no problem. If it is loud, demonstrative, and includes the words," You don't know the rule," then a whacking I will go.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

To me it is the HOW they are questioning part that matters.
Like I said if it's calm and conversational, I've got no problem. If it is loud, demonstrative, and includes the words," You don't know the rule," then a whacking I will go.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree. The one way of questioning you is unsporting; the other one really isn't.

Of course, then you also might have to factor in the odd occasion when you're being questioned about a call that you, yourself, maybe aren't that sure that you got right either. The length of the rope just might vary with those different circumstances also. In that case, I'll let a coach maybe be a l'il bit more demonstrative. Once/iffy call only though. He doesn't get instant replay on his opinion ever. I don't wanna hear the same thing from him on my next trip by his bench. In my experience, most good coaches will give you their rant, mutter to themselves a little, and then after they've got it out of their system, they forget about it and go back to coaching. If they don't, then they probably wanted the T anyway.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Examples of Nevada's automatic Ts from games that I have coached in during the spring.

"Player didn't control the ball - Travel!" (this is how the call was made during the run of play!

Player dropped the ball while picking it up. I simplyt asked wasn't that a fumble. Response: "She fumbled it coach - that's a double dribble!"

Situation where A had ball in front court, B tapped a pass, A tapped it and recovered in backcourt. I tell ref that's a backcourt because A was last to touch in f/c. "Your player touched it coach, they didn't have control - that's not a backcourt!"

If this passes for rules knowledge from refs getting paid to ref a game, how can a coach that has these same understandings get a T for not knowing the rules?

And where is that T covered in the rulebook? It is somehow more unsporting to ask for a call when you have the rule wrong than when you have it right? Sorry Nevada, but this has to be one of the more ludicrous reasons for an automatic T that I have read.

Coach, That is great stuff!
I'd have to say that it sounds like these officials deserve a few technical fouls.
If anything, your post only serves to strengthen my position that poor rules knowledge is unacceptable and should be punished. The coaches who inflict their lack of understanding upon the officials should receive technical fouls. That is the only thing that will force these coaches to change. The officials who are as wrong as those in the examples you have provided should have games taken away. That is the most effective punishment for them.
I understand that a lack of other (quality) officials and availability problems pose serious challenges to what I advocate, but if I were in charge of the officials for a tournament, I could guarantee you that you wouldn't have to put up with those guys. I could also guarantee that poor conduct from coaches would hurt their teams.
The bottom line is that neither the refs nor the coaches should have these misconceptions about the rules. That is one of the goals of this forum. I feel obligated when I step on the court to do something about this problem.

PS Where is the T in the rules book? 10-4-1 (b) (also a, e, and f may be applicable)

[Hawks Coach]

Nevada
If the refs in my cases used your rule, I would have had two Ts, because in their rulebook, they were right.

As for 10-4-1b, why does it matter if the rule reference is right or wrong? It is the act of trying to influence the decision, not rules knowledge that matters here. Same could be said for any other provision.

If the coach is repeatedly disagreeing with calls, repeatedly questioning your judgment, does it really matter if he knows the rules or not? Likewise, if he only asks about one call, does it matter if he is ignorant of the rulebook? Nothing in any of those rules implies that it is ok to engage in this activity if you have rules knowledge.

And your argument that you train coaches to meet a higher standard than some of the referees we have doesn't wash with me. I know that you know I make the effort to know the rules. But refs are paid to know the rules, and I know them as well or better than many sub-varsity refs, and better than a few varsity refs that I personally know (not many - that seems to be a pretty good cut-off point around here). Most coaches don't know the rules that well. But depending on what level you are reffing, you frequently have a volunteer part-time coach who has to know a lot that you do not need to know (how to run a practice, manage parents, schedule a season, set up offense and defense, etc.).

Is it right to hold these individuals to that standard of knowledge of the rules, rather than work to get them to a better level?

My first time coaching, my team got a 5 seconds call and I never knew the rule had changed since I was in HS. My player was dribbling and got the ball below the hash mark - we were good from my perspective. If I had gotten Td rather than educated when I questioned the call, I would have left with nothing but disrespect for the refs and no greater rules knowledge then I entered the gym with. Instead I learned how much I didn't know, and started working to know the rules better.

[Hawks Coach]

If this is what you mean, where coach complains, you tell him the rule, he says you are wrong - I can see where you are coming from. Still not sure you need to be instant with it, but I can understand that point a bit better.

If he just complains and is wrong, that is much different.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
If this is what you mean, where coach complains, you tell him the rule, he says you are wrong - I can see where you are coming from. Still not sure you need to be instant with it, but I can understand that point a bit better.

If he just complains and is wrong, that is much different.

Yes, Coach, Chuck stated my position very well. I'd bet that when you got the 5 second call, you didn't continue to press the issue, you just accepted that things might have changed and that you were probably incorrect. I have no problem with that kind of question or conduct. Ask, get your answer, and then let it go. It is the next step beyond this line that is the automatic T for me. This is because now that I have told you what the rule is, by continuing to disagree, you are either questioning my integrity (calling me a liar about what the rule says) or just being disrespectful and a nuisance.

As for why I feel that coaches should be forced to have better rules knowledge (and the T is the penalty which will force them to go this route); I firmly believe that it would eliminate most of the confrontations in a game.
I contend that most problems at the HS level happen because the coach is ignorant of the rules and gets into a petty argument with an official about a call. Or the coach doesn't teach his players the correct rules (because he doesn't know them) and the player yells at the referee.
(I'm assuming quality officiating here, not your goofball guys. )

Either way, the whole mess wouldn't have happened if he would just spend an hour or two with the rules book during the summer. The coach would then know the call was correct and focus on handling his team. Especially, for coaches that come back year after year, is it really too much to ask that they upgrade their rules knowledge as well as their coaching techniques?

You do this, and you should be applauded for it. You certainly wouldn't hurt your team with me on the court.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
For example, I point out that the author states one reason for calling a technical foul is:
2. Using profanity or language that is abusive, vulgar or obscene.

However, not only is this a technical foul, but according to NFHS rules it is also flagrant. The words chosen by the list writer even match those in the definition.

4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be ... If technical, it involves ... extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the author is not advocating calling this flagrant. For many others, I'm sure that it would be.

Doesn't the sentence structure of 4-19-4 indicate that it has to be both "extreme or persistant", and "vulgar or abusive" to warrant a flagrant technical? Otherwise it would read "extreme, persistent, vulgar, or abusive".

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

Doesn't the sentence structure of 4-19-4 indicate that it has to be both "extreme or persistant", and "vulgar or abusive" to warrant a flagrant technical? Otherwise it would read "extreme, persistent, vulgar, or abusive".

You are giving the Rules Committee way too much credit if you think that they have carefully weighed the grammar and vocabulary they use, and considered what the possible different meanings could be. If they'd only do it the way you are thinking, we'd have far fewer problems interpreting and explaining the rules.

[Nevadaref]

I agree with rainmaker. It think that the sentence structure is really awkward and that we shouldn't make too much out of it. I also believe that it is intended to be exemplary and supplementary. Most important for me is the line above that states, "a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct."

[Hawks Coach]

I read that as two categories - you can be just a general pain in the (insert vulgarity here) or you can fall into the instantly vulgar or abusive category. either way, you can be Td.