What's the Point?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Well, I was "one of the guys", and I did "2-man" mechanics. At least according to the people who can't understand why women object to "man-to-man" defense. I'm not being defensive here, just pointing out how words can be ambiguous. I mean when it comes right down to it, don't a lot of our discussions have to do with what the meaning of "is" is?

attaboy!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by DrakeM
Regardless of the "letter of the law", 17 seconds left in a 43-42 game is NOT the time to "prove a point", unless the assistant is way over the top. Problem with that is, if you have let him get away with the behavior for the previous 31 minutes and change, you've "made your bed" and have to lay there.

I agree with Juulie, that this is probably more a case of inexperienced officials, than anything else.

A good learning experience however, by ALL parties invovled.

And I agree with both of you, lots of inexperience to go around in this sitch. Not just the officials. The coaches were probably too inexperienced to understand how the game is played (coach/ref game, not basketball game) to realize they needed to stay in control (yes, I think if we heard from the refs they would say the coaches definitely went over the top). IOO both parties (coaches & officials) violated the unwritten contract we work under that Drake pointed out.

[Adam]

Originally posted by fiskme
I do think that Dan ref was out of line with his comments.

Um? Which comments? I don't see anything that's even borderline. The coach asked a question and made an insinuation. Just because Dan didn't coddle the coach and immediately impugn the officials' credibility or competence doesn't mean he was out of line.

[JRutledge]

I have noticed that they lower the level, the more of these types of questions are asked. When you work varsity and college ball, they coaches often know why they got T'd up and how to solve that problem the next time. When we are talking about games at the middle school level, all kinds of stuff takes place there. Basically what we have are inexperienced officials dealing with just as inexperienced coaches. This is why these games can be very hard to officiate. Even when a veteran comes down and works those games and draws a clear line in the sand, you get these coaches that get more upset, because all the crap they pulled with officials that do not know any better, does not work with a veteran that works higher levels. The official could have been a veteran that did not care about the outcome of the game and wanted to send a message. All I know is that the official was by rule justified in his actions. Next time this coach might want to watch the actions of his assistants.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebra44
Why are we jumping on this coach? Do you think an assistant standing is worth deciding a game on? Let the players determine who wins.

Who's jumping on the coach? I simply asked why the asst. coach was standing. What he was doing may have something to do with why he got a T.

DUH!

Don't be so damned judgmental.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I mean when it comes right down to it, don't a lot of our discussions have to do with what the meaning of "is" is?

Gee, thanks Juulie. Now I have a headache.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by fiskme
I do think that Dan ref was out of line with his comments. Do we wonder why some coaches view us as adversaries rather than a moderator? Let's show the guy some respect since he sought us out to help him understand why something happened rather than let his steam build up towards refs.

About the original question, yeah, as mentioned, probably inexperienced. The only T I have ever given for an assistant "standing up" was when he kept whining and was a total pain after warnings to he and the head coach. Maybe there was some of that?

And how exactly do you know that the guy was "probably" inexperienced? Have you heard the official's story to get his side of what really happened? Why are you pre-judging that official anyway? You talk about giving the coach some respect, but whereinthehell is your respect to the official that you're judging and labelling without ever hearing his side?

Jmo, but I think that you are out of line with your comments a helluva lot worse than Dan.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Who's jumping on the coach? I simply asked why the asst. coach was standing. What he was doing may have something to do with why he got a T.

DUH!

Don't be so damned judgmental.

Exactly! We got a whole pile of people dumping on the official, and not one of them knows what really happened or has heard the official's side. Lah me.

[Junker]

I'm getting in on this one way late, but here's my opinion. First of all, I agree with everyone that JH officials and coaches are often (but we really don't know in this case) inexeperienced. That's why they're at that level. I don't think, as an official I can say that the official was "wrong" to call the T. I wasn't there. I do know that the assistant by rule shouldn't be up. By being up, he's tempting fate. His action of standing opened the window for the T. I honestly wouldn't have called it unless he was complaining. Another issue here, that many of us have talked about in other posts, is with experienced officials, our tolerance level goes down as most of us go down with the level we are officiating. I feel like, and have been told at camps, that I'm a solid official. I'm not going to take far less abuse from fans and especially coaches than I would in a varsity game. Lastly coach, you post begins that you were still angry when you wrote. You have JH players to coach and model for. I understand being upset about losing. I'm all about playing to win. But at the JH level, isn't learning the game, enjoying the game, and learning sportsmanship the main thing? It sounds like your team played a good game. An official made a call at a critical time in the game that did hurt your chances to win. Its going to happen. Pat your players on the rear, tell them they did a nice job, and move on. Sorry this is so long. Maybe I should have posted earlier and more than once.

[Ref Daddy]

ART. 2 . . . The head coach and assistant coach(es) must remain seated on the bench at all times while the clock is running or is stopped except to:

a. Confer with bench personnel and players within the confines of the bench area during a charged time-out or the intermission between quarters and extra periods.
b. Attend an injured player when beckoned onto the court by an official.
c. Rise in front of their seat to spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a member of their team or to acknowledge a replaced player(s), but must immediately return to their seat. (See 1-13-2)

[w_sohl]

the above clearly states that if what tarheelcoach said was true to the letter, there was no reason for the "T". Wasn't there, can't honestly comment on the situation, but if it happened as stated it seems a little harsh.

[Maverick]

It doesn't seem to me like tarheelcoach was looking for us to tear into the official so much as he was just wondering what to expect next time so he can warn his assistants. By the letter of the rule, the situation as described would be a T. However, I don't think the situation as described would really warrant a T. I'd think at least a warning would be in order (I know you can claim that was gone over in pre-game but that's a long ways from everyone's minds by that point in the game). I don't think the intent of the rule is to T anyone on the bench if they stand up without an allowed reason.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by w_sohl
the above clearly states that if what tarheelcoach said was true to the letter, there was no reason for the "T". Wasn't there, can't honestly comment on the situation, but if it happened as stated it seems a little harsh.

Which one of those three points said that the assisstant coach can stand up during a live ball and yell instructions to the point guard????

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Maverick
It doesn't seem to me like tarheelcoach was looking for us to tear into the official so much as he was just wondering what to expect next time so he can warn his assistants. By the letter of the rule, the situation as described would be a T. However, I don't think the situation as described would really warrant a T. I'd think at least a warning would be in order (I know you can claim that was gone over in pre-game but that's a long ways from everyone's minds by that point in the game). I don't think the intent of the rule is to T anyone on the bench if they stand up without an allowed reason.

The best way to avoid the same thing from happening in the future would be for the head coach to put a seatbelt on his assistants. The rule is clear. So to avoid the possibility of an official enforcing the rule, don't break the rule. Simple as that.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by Ref Daddy
ART. 2 . . . The head coach and assistant coach(es) must remain seated on the bench at all times while the clock is running or is stopped except to:

a. Confer with bench personnel and players within the confines of the bench area during a charged time-out or the intermission between quarters and extra periods.
b. Attend an injured player when beckoned onto the court by an official.
c. Rise in front of their seat to spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a member of their team or to acknowledge a replaced player(s), but must immediately return to their seat. (See 1-13-2)

Can anyone attest to having a head coach actually remain seated during the entire contest? Why have the coach's box then? It is rare to whack a head coach for standing to coach unless he has been warned, already seatbelted, or asks for it with his US conduct. It is not unusual to let them stand as long as they stay in the box area and don't come looking for trouble. This may not be a universally applied notion but it is what I do as opposed to strict enforcement.

Am I wrong for allowing it? Arguably, no.