|
Fri Dec 17, 1999, 02:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
I observed a game last night where the head coach was ejected from the game. I couldn't hear what was being said but neither the coach nor the ref were arguing outloud . I could tell that the coach wanted to make her point and I belive that the ref went over to tell her she had lost the box as a result of a tech for protesting the other officials last call. I assume that she was still hot and continued complaining about the call(s). My question is as an official how much guff is acceptable from the coach in this situation. Should the coach be allowed to get in the last word and the official just walk away or should the official keep the upper hand?
|
|
Fri Dec 17, 1999, 03:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Coaches should always be given the last word. But they can't cross certain lines when they do it. If the coach cussed out the R and then the U came over and she cussed him out, then we have an ejection. But if she is arguing in a reasonible manor then there is no reason not to let the coach have the last word.
[This message has been edited by Tim Roden (edited December 17, 1999).] [This message has been edited by Tim Roden (edited December 17, 1999).]
|
|
Sun Dec 19, 1999, 11:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreed. There's a fine line we have to walk when it comes to "heated discussions" with coaches. If their comments are warranted, suck it up and take it. You'll gain a lot of respect from that coach. If the comments are bogus and they are trying to see how far they can push you - let 'em know!
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 01:19am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: If they do, then that's the only rule they know. 
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 09:45am
|
|||
|
|||
quote:
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 10:09am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Let's see, maybe there is something that I missed. The coach and official are 'arguing' over a call. The coach then gets a 'T', and the other official goes to tell the coach to SIT on the bench and then the coach continues to argue and finally get the 2nd 'T'. I call that poor officiating. I can' seem to find the 'arguing' rule in my book! No coach should be told to 'SIT', they already know that rule. These officials got what they deserved --- a chance to practice their writing skills in filing a report for the ejection of a coach. As an official, when you have to explain one call to a coach, then you'll have to explain another call to the opposing coach. When you explain the interpretation of "sitting on the bench", then be ready to explain another interpretation to the opposing coach. Also, coaches are allowed to STAND to 'coach' and not to argue and address any official. I hope that these officials learned a valuable lesson from this experience.
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 04:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: "Coaching" is not one of the reasons coaches are allowed to stand, as listed in 10-5-1 (? I hope that's right - I don't have the rule book with me.) And, often, coaches will continue to stand (in states with the coach's box) after a T until they are reminded of the rule.
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 06:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hey Ref can you "T" me for what i am thinking"? The "Coach" may have wanted the "T" to fire up her team! We don't know what was said so we can only speculate.
Coachs have as much responsibility in rules knowlege as the referee's and arguing a judgement call is a no-no. When things start to get heated, GET THE BALL IN PLAY and GET AWAY FROM THE BENCH'S! Helping your PARTNER shows good team work between the officials and 2"T"s by the same official should allmost never happen. Most importantly if you "boot" one admit it, and let the coachs know you will work very hard to not let it happen again. ------------------ Don
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 06:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
KDM,
It is a good preventive officiating practice for the other official (or trail in 3-person mechanics) to talk with the coach and prevent further technical fouls, especially for standing in the coaching box after receiving a direct technical. As we all know most coaches do not know the rules, and if they do, they open the envelope as far as we will allow them to. The bench decorum rule is one of 'our' associations points-of-evidence this year as we have not done a very good job of enforcing the rule in the past. 
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 07:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: If the coaching box is in effect (and I don't know if it is in Mississippi, where George is from), then the coach loses the privilege of using the box for the rest of that game as soon as he/she gets the first technical (direct or indirect). He/she has been "seat-belted." Here in Washington state, where we use the box, the official who does not call the T goes and tells the coach that he/she has lost the box and can't stand to coach anymore (as stated in NF book 10-5 penalty). It sounds like this may have happened at the game George saw. As far as what I'm willing to put up with when I'm "seat-belting" a coach--I'll usually pause for a moment, listen to the coach, and say "I hear you" or "You've made your point," then turn around. Anything profane or repeated boorishness and I'll send the coach away. (Although, in 3+ seasons, I still haven't booted one!) Still, just to make it clear--when the coaching box is in effect, after a T, coaches are NOT allowed to stand to "coach" anymore. They can only stand during timeouts, for correctable error-related stuff, to call time-out, to "spontaneously react to an outstanding play", or to do anything else permitted in 10-5-1 or 10-5-2. Paul
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 07:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: With all due respect . . . I think there are quite a few things you ADDED. The original post didn't say ther were arguing (in fact, if you check it, it actually said "neither the coach nor the ref were arguing"), you simply focused on that word. In addition, although there may have been a second technical called, that is not stated in the original post either - you simply assumed one was called. I call that poor reading comprehension. I couldn't disagree with you more on explaining rules to coaches. For me, it falls under "preventive officiating." If I move to report a foul and a coach has a question or is asking for an explanation in a reasonable or respectful way, I have no problem providing one. But I'm not conducting a clinic out there - it's a word or two and I'm putting the ball back in play. BTW, in Pennsylvania, a coach is not allowed to stand at all (except to call a time-out, confer with the scorer's table about a correctable error or a timing or scoring error, or to replace an injured or disqualified player). While I don't tell them to sit when I see a coach standing, I do give them a subtle hand gesture indicating my desire for them to return to the bench. If this upsets them, they get the technical they should have gotten when I first saw them standing (it is supposed to be automatic here in PA). Good Luck! Have a Safe and Happy New Year Everyone! tmm [This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 26, 1999).]
|
|
Sun Dec 26, 1999, 10:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
George,
to get back to your original question, it is up to each official how much they are going to take. The coach should not necessarily get the last word but he/she should be heard! I don't believe anyone should have the upper hand! Our job as referees is to enforce the rules of play, so that no team has an unfair advantage. ------------------ Don
|
|
Mon Dec 27, 1999, 01:06am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Well, you may be right!!! But, I think that most of them know more than we give them credit for.
|
|
Mon Dec 27, 1999, 02:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: TMM, Thanks for your response. I added nothing to the original comment. Let's go back and examine it. You left out the word "OUTLOUD". The coach and official could not be heard by the author of the statement because 'neither the coach nor the ref were 'arguing outloud'. I reason that there was some type of an argument (why did the author choose to use the word 'arguing' and not a word like ... discussing, joking, screaming, talking, etc.). You sir, simply refused to use the entire sentence. Also, since (according to the first sentence of the post) the coach was ejected, any reasonable official would suspect it was for two technicals. Since the coach had received one 'T' for disputing a call, and it was so stated in sentence 2 of the post. Now, the other official approaches the coach to inform her of the lost coaching box and the coach continues to protest. The author writes, " I assume she was still hot and continued complaining about the call(s)". This was complaining aimed at the 'other' official. Now, since we understand that the coach was ejected (read the 1st sentence), I think it is excellent reading comprehension to reason that the second official issued the second technical foul. What I find to be most interesting is your stated comment that you refuse to enforce all the rules. You see, my 'reading comprehension' is not that bad. Look at your statement in the 3rd paragraph. It appears that you only give technical fouls when you 'feel' that the coach is 'upset' by your hand gesture. Then, you state, '... supposed to be automatic here in PA'. So, you are going to bend the rules for your own satisfaction. That is what we call 'selective' officiating. You MUST enforce ALL of the rules. The best way to get a 'bad' rule changed is to call it!!! While I often respect those that disagree with me, I'm having a difficult time respecting someone who openly refuses to enforce a rule. What if your next partner refuses to enforce the 'travelling rule' or the 'goaltending rule'? It would be interesting to know how many times in a game you give the coach a 'hand gesture' to remind them to stay seated. I'll guarantee you that the coaches know exactly how far and how much they can 'get away with' when you're calling their games. Then in paragraph 2, you said, "if I move to report a foul and a coach has a question or is asking for an explanation in a reasonable or respectful way, I have no problem providing one". Sir, if you are reporting the foul in the designated area (pg. 36 of the official's 1999/2000 manual), there is no way that you should come from that area to answer any question. The entire purpose of moving it further on the court was to keep officials away from the coaches and vice versa. How many times can you answer a question or give an explanation in 'one or two words'? Also, 'preventive officiating' is 99% on the floor and not on the sidelines with the coaches. It appears from a couple of your statements that you have too much concern or sympathy for the coaches. Forget the coaches, and do what is best for the game and for the kids. Best of luck, KDM
|
|
Mon Dec 27, 1999, 04:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
My mistake on the ejection (I get an "F" for reading comprehension).
But I stand by my other comments as I typed them (though not necessarily as KDM intrepeted them).
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
