Table side with Ts and disqualifications.

[JRutledge]

I was just at a Rules Meeting tonight. When the Rules Interpreter who is a current official talked about handling situations that involved Ts and disqualifications, he made this following statement.

"As and officials at some point you are going to have to defend your calls. If you are always going away from conflict, you are going to have some problems in your career."

Now he was implying that officials are going to have to stay table side even in situations that deal with DQ'd players and Ts. Has anyone told you differently or do they seem to agree with this statement.

Peace

[bigwhistle]

Discretion is the key. There are some battles that are best left unfought. Under normal circumstances the official should be able to handle the heat. However, if the coach is that bent out of shape, it is best to stay away. This is the opinion of several supervisors.

In high school, this should not be that difficult a situation. There will be very few disqualifications that would put the calling official in front of the coach, since it would basically have to happen in the first half. If the coach has been T'd, he has the seatbelt to keep him away from the official

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Now he was implying that officials are going to have to stay table side even in situations that deal with DQ'd players and Ts. Has anyone told you differently or do they seem to agree with this statement.

I covered the new mechanic at our first local clinic. Prior to the clinic, I raised the question with our booking supervisor and suggested that we go opposite on T's and DQ's. He called the state office and they agreed. So that's what we're doing.

[zebraman]

Our interpreters have always told us that T's and DQ's are situations that are best handled by reporting and then going opposite.

In disqualifications, they want us to follow the procedure where the non-calling official informs the coach and then stays tableside.

I always pre-game it that way with my partner(s).

I don't think your interpreter used the right words. "Defending your calls" and "conflict" bring to mind an adversarial relationship between coach and ref. Maybe he should have said "at some point you are going to have to discuss your calls" and "if you are always going away from discussion" rather than the words he used. As refs, we should be open to civil dialogue with coaches. IMHO, once it reaches the "defending your calls" and "conflict" stage, the communication between ref and coach is no longer productive.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
I don't think your interpreter used the right words. "Defending your calls" and "conflict" bring to mind an adversarial relationship between coach and ref. Maybe he should have said "at some point you are going to have to discuss your calls" and "if you are always going away from discussion" rather than the words he used. As refs, we should be open to civil dialogue with coaches. IMHO, once it reaches the "defending your calls" and "conflict" stage, the communication between ref and coach is no longer productive.

Z

Whatever the language (and I was trying to be as accurate with his comments as possible) he used, it does not really matter. He takes the position that you should not have to run when you T someone up or DQ a player. I happen to agree. I guess why all game you are going table side and now in this one situation we are going to do something different.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Whatever the language (and I was trying to be as accurate with his comments as possible) he used, it does not really matter. He takes the position that you should not have to run when you T someone up or DQ a player. I happen to agree. I guess why all game you are going table side and now in this one situation we are going to do something different.

Peace

Sure it matters, language has meaning. "Defending your calls" sounds defensive like you are saying, "no way coach, I am right and you are wrong." "Discussing your calls" is more like, "OK coach, I didn't see it that way but I understand what you are saying."

By giving referees the option to go away from tableside doesn't mean anyone is running away. You have to use your judgement and experience. If you think that the coach is just going to vent and nothing positive is going to come from you being there, get the heck out. Why be there if you have a hunch it's going to end up a bad situation? If you think it's going to be a helpful discussion, then maybe you stay.

I consider my ability to keep positive, open communication lines with coaches as my strengths. But there are also times when the best course of action is to walk away. Obviously, the NFHS has seen that coaches in general don't usually use DQ and T situations to have positive, helpful conversations.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 09:31 AM]

[David B]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I covered the new mechanic at our first local clinic. Prior to the clinic, I raised the question with our booking supervisor and suggested that we go opposite on T's and DQ's. He called the state office and they agreed. So that's what we're doing.

Our group will be doing the same. It will only make for a worse situation by the calling official staying in the line of fire.

I know most veteran officials would not have a problem but a young official is going to end up having to make some tough decisions.

Thanks
David

[Grail]

Attended an interp last night as well. This one by the IHSA assistant director.

He made it clear that in DQ and technical situations it was not only OK, but encouraged that the official go opposite in order to avoid the potential ugly situation.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


Sure it matters, language has meaning. "Defending your calls" sounds defensive like you are saying, "no way coach, I am right and you are wrong." "Discussing your calls" is more like, "OK coach, I didn't see it that way but I understand what you are saying."

Not sure I completly understand you point, but you have a right to feel that way....I guess.

Originally posted by zebraman
By giving referees the option to go away from tableside doesn't mean anyone is running away. You have to use your judgement and experience. If you think that the coach is just going to vent and nothing positive is going to come from you being there, get the heck out. Why be there if you have a hunch it's going to end up a bad situation? If you think it's going to be a helpful discussion, then maybe you stay.

I have no problem with the option. But I have found in my years of working varsity ball, you are going to have to say something or handle a coach when they are upset. That situation is not going to just happen during a T or DQ'd player. As a matter of fact, it is better if I talk to a coach after a T then try to have a partner explain something they did not see or know why something happen.

Originally posted by zebraman
I consider my ability to keep positive, open communication lines with coaches as my strengths. But there are also times when the best course of action is to walk away. Obviously, the NFHS has seen that coaches in general don't usually use DQ and T situations to have positive, helpful conversations.

I have never said not to walk away. I am saying that you cannot assume that all situations like this are going to be confrontational.

Danny Crawford of the NBA provided a DVD of situations the NBA made for training. They had the Referees with a mike on and showed clips of how they handled both players and coaches. In just about every situation on the DVD the referees did not walk away from any confrontation. As a matter of fact they would engage it to make a point or to suggest that "they needed to play the game and not worry about them." The officials would walk away after they made a point, but they were not constantly running the opposite direction. Even during timeouts they would approach the bench side to make a point if need be.

This is why I love this table side mechanic. I was tired of defending calls that I did not see nor had no idea what happen. I did not like getting yelled at because my partner had to go opposite the table on their calls. I also like explaining my own calls or having a word with a coach about what I would see. When I would make a call, I would make an effort if a coach was really complaining to say something at a timeout or during a dead ball. I just think if you prejudge how bad a situation is, you can create more problems for yourself. I have no problem telling a coach his player fouled out when the entire gym can see what his player did to get that 5th foul. I can tell many do not agree, but that is OK with me.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I just think if you prejudge how bad a situation is, you can create more problems for yourself. I have no problem telling a coach his player fouled out when the entire gym can see what his player did to get that 5th foul. I can tell many do not agree, but that is OK with me.

Peace

I'm not saying that it never works Rut. In fact, it probably works a lot of the time. Sounds like it works regularly for you which is great and you should be commended for having good interpersonal skills. But in high school basketball, where the years of experience of both coaches and officials vary, I think the NFHS decided that it would be best to just get the official and coach apart during those potentially testy situations. Before they changed the DQ mechanic, I never had any problems with coaches letting them know that I had just sent their player to the bench with five fouls. However, I know some hS coaches (and I bet you do too) who would use that opportunity to vent and would do everything they could to make that 30-seconds miserable for the official.

Sometimes it's best to get back to a discussion later than right then when the coach is frustrated because he/she just lost their best player to fouls or got a T.

I've been reffing long enough now that it's pretty darn seldom that I ever feel that I need to walk away from a coach. However, in my first couple of years, I would have loved any mechanic that got me away from the bench area in a scenario where the coach might vent on me. I heard recently that the average "career length" of a high school official is between 3 and 4 years.

Z

[JRutledge]

Z,

If you point of view on this is that the NF has a great mechanic, you are talking to the wrong person. I am not debating whether the mechanic to give us the "option" is good or bad. I just feel that as an official you cannot just say "I only have one option in these situations." You have to be somewhat flexible considering that we are now going table side for all fouls.

In my area if you are doing 3 Man games, you are working a varsity game most likely. You do not just get those games without being experienced or having some idea on how to handle yourself. If you cannot handle yourself, you will not stay there very much longer. You might cause more problems for yourself if you cannot handle a coach that is upset than just simply running in the opposite direction.

BTW, one of the suggestions in the Rules Meeting last night was to have the calling official during a DQ'd situation to inform the coach, then start the clock. Then let the non-calling official wait for the sub within the 30 second time period. That is exactly what I have been doing for several years. It works for me and many successful officials I know as well.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Z,

If you point of view on this is that the NF has a great mechanic, you are talking to the wrong person. I am not debating whether the mechanic to give us the "option" is good or bad. I just feel that as an official you cannot just say "I only have one option in these situations." You have to be somewhat flexible considering that we are now going table side for all fouls.

In my area if you are doing 3 Man games, you are working a varsity game most likely. You do not just get those games without being experienced or having some idea on how to handle yourself. If you cannot handle yourself, you will not stay there very much longer. You might cause more problems for yourself if you cannot handle a coach that is upset than just simply running in the opposite direction.

BTW, one of the suggestions in the Rules Meeting last night was to have the calling official during a DQ'd situation to inform the coach, then start the clock. Then let the non-calling official wait for the sub within the 30 second time period. That is exactly what I have been doing for several years. It works for me and many successful officials I know as well.

Peace

Rut,

Your initial post was this: "Now he was implying that officials are going to have to stay table side even in situations that deal with DQ'd players and Ts." I don't agree with that at all.

Now you are saying that you need to be flexible. Of course, I agree with that. There are some high school coaches who get in a state of mind that they cannot be "handled," even by an NBA ref who puts out a DVD on handling coaches. In that situation, standing there just to prove you can handle it is pointless.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
Rut,

Your initial post was this: "Now he was implying that officials are going to have to stay table side even in situations that deal with DQ'd players and Ts." I don't agree with that at all.

I never suggested that you "had to do" anything. I never suggested that he said you had little or no option. He said that you need to learn to stand up for yourself and your calls or "you will find yourself with more problems." That was his commentary on always feeling like you have to "run away" from the coach because you have the option of a mechanic. He also said that you are going to the table side all game long. You can go to the table and handle a coach in these situations as well.

Originally posted by zebraman
Now you are saying that you need to be flexible. Of course, I agree with that. There are some high school coaches who get in a state of mind that they cannot be "handled," even by an NBA ref who puts out a DVD on handling coaches. In that situation, standing there just to prove you can handle it is pointless.

Z

I think you got what you wanted to out of my post. I do not think you really thought about what I said, you just reacted to it. Because I also never said you had to take conflict and stand there to prove something. I just stated that you can stand there and deal with a coach and not have much of a problem.

Peace

[RefAHallic]

At our clinic this week, the state coordinator of officials said we won't be following the new Federation 3-person crew mechanic. Something about certain people on the rules committee (he's back on it) are trying to make high school officiating like college and the pros. Those officials do it for a living. There are fewer high school officials that can handle a coach bending their ear after foul calls. Our coordinator is a retired NCAA (he worked the SEC) official.

I actually had a game last season in which I had to watch my partner try to explain my call. In that situation, it looked like I was running. You report table side, why not just stay there.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[QUOTE]
I never suggested that you "had to do" anything.


Rut, your initial post said "have to."

Here it is again:

"Now he was implying that officials are going to have to stay table side even in situations that deal with DQ'd players and Ts."


He said that you need to learn to stand up for yourself and your calls or "you will find yourself with more problems."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes you just gotta walk away. Note "walk", not run away.

That was his commentary on always feeling like you have to "run away" from the coach because you have the option of a mechanic. He also said that you are going to the table side all game long. You can go to the table and handle a coach in these situations as well.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Ya gotta know when to hold em' and know when to fold em'.

I just called the 5th foul on A1, team A's best player. As I report, I hear coach A, with his two years of varsity experience, starting to vent his frustration on me. Based on an earlier attempt to calm down a frustrated coach A, I know that he's probably past the reasoning stage, despite my good coach/ref intervention abilities. I can either tell the coach that he has 30 seconds to get a sub in to which he responds, "go F#*$ yourself ref" or I can slowly walk away and let my partner walk over and tell him. If he vents on my partner, my partner T's him up. Now it doesn't look like any personal vendettas because I called the 5th foul and my partner T'd him up. We gave him a chance to regain his composure and he chose not to. Nobody can say I baited him into his 5th cuz' all I did was report and walk away.

Z



[Edited by zebraman on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 02:35 PM]