Coach perceptions of what we call
 

I've attended 2 camps so far this summer one in June and one last weekend.

At the first camp back in June, the D-1 college coach of the host school was brought in to talk to the officials. Towards the end of his talk, he took Q & A and one of the questions posed to him was "what bugs you and your colleagues most about the way your games are called by officials?"

His first response was that officials who do not respond to valid questions drive him and the other coaches nuts.

His second response was that the game is too rough. He feels that overly aggressive play is allowed and that physical play hurts the quick and skilled players and also makes the game less entertaining to watch.

His third response was that the offense is given too many "benefit of the doubt" calls.

The second camp was this last weekend. The head coach of the hosting 4A high school was brought in to talk to the officials. A similar question was asked, "what calls get coaches most upset?"

His first comment was that he gets upset when some officials will not talk to him when he asks a valid question about a call.

He then said that there are too many charges that get called as blocks. He said that officials call a P/C foul when the defender moves 2 inches even though the offense initiated the contact. Then when he asks the ref about the call, the official says, "the defender moved to the side." His point was that it is impossible to stay completely still like a statue and that officials often miss the intent of that rule which is to reward good defense.

His last point was that we allow games to get too rough.

We have heard all this before (and I agreed with them both) but I found it interesting how similar their answers were even though one was a HS coach and one was D-1 college coach.

Z

Good post Z, thanks.

NCAA mechanics have evolved over the last few years to place the calling official table side specifically to allow dialogue. This is being addressed, but the bottom line IMO is that there will always be times when a coach wants a discussion when 1 is not warranted.

As for getting too rough...to a degree coaches have input on how the game is called. Rough play is always a POE. That said...IMO "box out!!!" and "put a body on 'em!!!" are pretty much code words for "you aint playing rough enough for me".

IOW coaches have a hand in this as well, don't you think?

One thing that I've learned about perception is that the old officiating adage "Perception is reality" really is true! You can do the best job on the floor and be the best official out there - but if the coaches (and fans to a lesser extent) perceive you to not be very good, that is what really matters.

I completely agree on the PC/Block call - I think that far too many officials (mostly at the high school level) default to calling a block. We should have many more PC calls - and the key is to referee the defense and then understand what the rule and intent of the rule is. We have to give the defense the benefit of the doubt on this one if it is close.

Communication with coaches is one of those things that we are always trying to improve. I agree that we have to answer legitimate questions. Sometimes that is not easy! I think coaches want a simple, short, straight-forward answer rather than some long-winded monologue - that is what sometimes gets us in trouble.

Dan,

Both coaches acknowledged that there are times when officials can't have a conversation and also that some coach comments don't warrant a response. They were both referring to officials that just don't have good table skills or seem to be the "I'll ref and you coach and never the two shall meet" philosophy. In our assoc, we have a couple guys who call a great game but just don't have any personal skills. They both hate three-person. :(

The D-1 coach specifically talked about the difference between being aggressive and being rough. He also talked about how coaches at the D-1 are paid to win and they are going to play as rough as the officials allow because it is to their advantage. He said that most of his colleagues love a game that is consistently called fairly tight because the players adjust and it makes for a more fun game to watch as well as coach. It was a very interesting talk.

Z

I was surprised to learn about the new FT mechanic this year that puts the T standing on the half line, 10-15 feet onto the floor during the first of two/first two of three shots. When I asked clinicians about it, the two answers I got (and they were all admitedly guesses) were to see subs better and to get the official away from the coach. The sub thing is interesting, but seems pretty obviously specious. Which leaves the coach thing. If the point of putting the calling official over there is to promote dialogue, why are we now putting that official so far from the coaches? :confused:

I've been doing it this way pretty much all along. The thinking as I understand it is while we do need to go to the table there's no need for us to stand there for the entire time quietly taking sh!t from some coach. Especially if you're not the type who can deal well with taking sh1t. :) And it really does help you monitor the table better if you're not standing on the sideline yacking with some coach. But at the end of the day, we're generally standing in front of the coach who's team just got fouled during the first half, aint we? During the second half we're standing next to the guy who's team is making FT's.

:)

At the camp I just attended, every evaluator told us to stand "on the button" (where the volleyball poles anchor to the floor). Their logic was that you are close enough to hear if the coach wants to ask a question yet far enough away that conversation is not invited. If a question is asked, you can always take a step in the proper direction to answer. It also leaves you far enough away that, unless the gym is really loud, the other coach will be able to hear the exchange...assuming he is interested.

If there is no button...take you place about a step to the sideline side of the volleyball line.

This may not be applicable in your area :)

Interesting. At all the camps I have been to (including the two this summer), I have always been told that the trail should be at the 28-foot line, 4-feet onto the floor with your back to the coach. This allows a pleasant conversation without letting the coach put his arm around you (boy does that look bad to the other coach). It's also far enough away from the coach that it's usually obvious if he/she is acting in a way that deserves some attention. If the conversation is pleasant, you can talk with the coach through your whistle.

Z

Zebraman, those were two valid points thanks for sharing.

This is pretty much what I had been taught previously. And it seemed to work pretty well, although here the only leagues that use 3 whistle are rec leagues. So that's hardly compelling experience.

And I realize that it has worked well for some of you, like Dan.

It just seems like kind of a conspicuously out of the way place to put one of the officials. Especially since he has to take several steps in on the final shot in order to be useful. The first time I saw this, it looked like the official was trying really hard not to be near the coach. But I guess if every official is doing it, then the coaches will be used to it and not perceive it as being shunned. And it does give the coach at the far end of the floor equal (-ly bad) access to him.

Coaches are not complaining so much about rough play in the paint (at least not to me). They are complaining about too much contact permitted on the ball handler and the shooter. They feel that it has become open season on shooters, particularly after a shot has been released.

One complaint I hear often is against the 'late whistle' where the official waits to see if the ball goes in before using the whistle. I've heard the phrase "see the whole play before making a call", but I don't have enough of an understanding of the principle involved to explain it to others.

BTW, many coaches have also said the current level of contact permitted is fine. As long as it is called consistently from game to game and from official to official, they'll coach their players to deal with it accordingly.

I think at the end of the day you have to take all of this with a grain of salt. For one coaches complain when the calls benefit them. I see a lot of time minor contact is called on the shooter and ball handler by their defender and they go nuts. So the coaches comments are nice and something to keep in mind, but I do not trust that this coach is right or this to be a real honest opinion on what the game should be or should not be. Coaches have an agenda when they talk about how the game is called. Then the funny thing is all the rules at the NCAA are managed entirely by the coaches. There is not one official on either side of NCAA basketball. So if they want the game changed, it is coaches that will make that change, not officials.

Peace

I've heard the same thing for 2 summers about officials who will not answer valid questions. Here-in lies the problem.....what they consider as a question, some officials consider an arse chewin and what not. I will agree though that some people are afraid to answer a coach from time to time.

Jim, a coach who complains about a late whistle to me has lost his credibility. All I do is tell them they must agree with the call since they can only complain about the timing. I never explain further.

And I agree, if coaches accept the game is being called the same way both ends they are fine with that. Regardless of the level of contact.

Just make sure it's being called the same way both ends. :)

I think the issue arises because when a block or illegal use of hands or other foul is called, the whistle sounds right away. With fouls on outside shots, the officials often wait until the shot misses to blow the whistle. To many observers this seems like the official is determining whether there is a foul based on whether or not the shot went in, whereas the observer thinks a foul is a foul, and think that whether the shot goes in or not is irrelevant.

As I mentioned, I've heard this explained that the official has to see the whole play in order to determine whether the shooter has been disadvantaged. Is this a convention for fouls on shots, or are there other plays where the official should wait before whistling a foul? Is there a simpler way of explaining this to fans and coaches. (Many may feel this is pointless, but when I'm game management I am asked to explain the officiating frequently.)

I am involved with youth basketball more than HS level basketball and many coaches are inexperienced and untrained and need some guidance. In NY, everyone thinks Billy Martin and Lou Piniella should be their role models.

As explained to me by 2 different ACC officials at 2 separate camps, here are the general guidelines as I comprehended them:

• Shots taken right around the basket, especially by post players, involving contact on the arms or marginal body contact, have a patient whistle.

• Jump shots and other shots that are not immediately near the basket, plus crashes, call on contact (if contact warrants a whistle)

I agree that contact on the ball handlers between the arcs has become too excessive in my neck of the woods. It's open season to bump and reach when the offensive player is dribbling down the sideline.

I do find it strange that some people think too many blocks are beng called. I think it's the opposite. It seems that anytime the defender takes the contact in the chest, regardless of if they are moving or leaning or took the position after the offense player jumped, they get the call.

The calls that got me the most this season and maybe you guys can help me understand, is when my post player is being forced out of the lane by a defender who is all over their back and they give a little chicken wing with their elbow too hold them off - whistle - offensive foul. Not saying it's not a foul on the offense, but was there more of an emphasis to watch the offense closer and not so much the displacement by the defender?

Has high school adopted the "wait and see" foul calling method too now? I for one don't like it.

Where you may be confused is that there is NO requirement that the player be stationary...they may be moving when contact is made and still draw the charge. This is not new, but surprises a lot of people who learn the "rules" from the wrong places.

Even leaning can be ok if the lean isn't what is creating the contact. If the contact would have been the same or worse withtout the lean, I reward the defender.

As far as getting to the position late...again, the player doesn't have to be still, just in the path before the contact. If they're backpeddling in the path, it is not possible to have a block. If there is contact sufficient for a foul, it can only be a charge.
Well, my guess is that the two players were leaning on each other...usually what I see. Then one of them takes a much more agressive action. It could be chicken wing, a knee in the butt, or any number of actions. Most will allow some amount of leaning on each other but when it escalates, it will draw a foul on whoever ups the ante first.

I cannot speak for what takes place directly in your area, but "reaching" is not a foul. Also if a dribbler is going toward the sideline, the question I have to ask is what were they doing there? Defense is allowed to play the game and defend the movement of the dribbler as long as they do so legally. Not every bump is the fault or caused by the defender. You cannot get a square peck in a round hole and a lot of times this is expected by dribblers and their coaches and they want us to bail out foul.

As said before, it is legal for a defender to move to maintain position as long as they have established legal guarding position. Also as a guideline, when a defender has maintained LGP and takes contact fully in the chest, then that is more than likely going to be called a foul on the ball handler.

Well I will say that I think officials do not do a good job at calling the first foul. But with that being said, a lot of times both players are doing some illegal things and it is not called. I can tell you I have called many fouls on the offensive player and I have gotten more crap for that. I think we too often give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt when the defender did everything right. Maybe the officials in your game called fouls on the offensive player because they felt your player caused most of the contact. For all you know the officials might have passed on the first contact by your guy, passed on the second contact by the defender, then got your player for the 3rd action. I was told at a camp this summer that if you miss the first foul, miss the second foul and make sure you get the third foul.

Well I do not know what you mean by a "wait and see" method, but if an official is doing their job they are not going to be so quick to call a foul when there clearly is no advantage. For example I am not going to call a hand check when a player clearly gets by the defender and makes an easy play. Or I am not going to call a foul when a shooter clearly was not affected by the contact and could complete the play. Now the more years I have, the more my whistle is much slower than it was at the beginning of my career. Now that might not be a philosophy you do not accept, but I can tell you this is what is wanted by many assignors and higher level officials. In my opinion this is the only way to do things if you want to call the game properly.

Peace

It's how the rules are written. Contact that doesn't cause some sort of advantage isn't a foul. So, if your shooter is bumped and his shot isn't affected, there's no foul. To me, it doesn't matter if the shot goes in, only if the shot is made more difficult by the contact.

I agree. The issue is really when an official can judge whether the contact was sufficient to justify a foul call. There are apparently legitimate reasons to wait to see the result before making a call, but I don't think that too many people other than officials are aware of this. As BadNewsRef pointed out, contact near the basket may be difficult to judge without waiting.

Yep. And, unfortunately, by the time we blow the whistle, the shot has already missed, and it looks like we waited to see if the shot would go in or not. So the crowd, and the coaches, tend to get the wrong impression. It's just the nature of the beast. On these plays, I rarely see whether the ball goes in; I'm looking for body positioning and the effect from contact; whether the degree of difficulty got raised or not. :)