Huh? Dude, go back to your rec league before you tell me what I would have done. Or get some professional help, which ever comes first.


You can pre-game this all you like, that is not going to prevent a coach from going ape sh!t.

I agree that ejection of a coach is not the first choice, but I am not afraid to pull the trigger either. Sounds like you are afraid to pull the trigger. If I am not non-calling official, I am not calming anyone down. I may say something to the coach to let them know I will give an explanation, but I am not calming anyone down for any reason. Also, I cannot think of any time where I needed to have a pre-game for this issue. Either you know how to deal with these situations or you do not.

Peace

Are we still having serious debates with Old School? :rolleyes:

<b>Serious</b> as in "Are you <b>serious</b>?:D

I'm flabbergasted by this thread. Here, we are taught, instructed, judged, and critiqued on how we handle the coaches in that specific situation. And while calming down may be a little strong a term, one of the other officials is required to be by the bench and how he handles the coach will be critiqued. I know first hand that ignoring a coach who has been teed that is trying to communicate his perspective is judged as poor game management. It happened to a partner of mine after I had whacked a coach. The assignor was in the stands and ripped my partner a new one after the game.

I don't paint little whistles on my car door for every time I whack a coach. I don't view coaches as part of the evil empire. I also recognize that they can cross a line and get teed. ALOT of the time, they realize it too and the T can get them to calm down which makes for a better game. If me or a partner can help them calm down, then thats good game management.

But helping them calm down doesn't mean I'm throwing my partner under the bus either. But a professional demeanor even after an incident can help defuse a situation. Ignoring a coach is NOT considered good communication skills and therefore not good game management.

OK...now bring on the flames.

Could someone please direct me to the page in the officials manual that says a partner should calm a coach who has just been T'd?

If my partner T's a coach, reports the foul, and the coach is not sitting, then I will go tell the coach that he has to sit. I will say (perhaps with these very words): "Coach, you have to sit now." That's it. No discussion of anything, as I'm not there to explain anything to him, nor am I responsible for his state of mind.

I don't consider that "calming the coach." If the coach wants to get in my kitchen, he can be done for the night - his choice.

There is a big difference between doing your job professionally and the philosophy being proposed by Old School and apparently your assignor...and for what it's worth, my HS partner comes from Ohio so I know first hand of the unique and sometimes completely against the manual, like no team control signal, way they do things.;)

As I stated earlier: In the NFHS the coach loses the box, so at that point I believe a non-calling official should go over to inform the coach, but it's not to allow the coach to voice their concerns, it's to remove some of the emotion and hopefully diffuse the situation.

If I'm going over to notify the coach I'm not talking to the coach, I'm observing the players. If the coach wants to use that first FT to talk to my backside...CALMLY...so be it, but after that second FT goes up, they get told to sit and I'm going about getting the ball back into play.

By doing it that way, I'm doing what I'm supposed to do following a T...notifying the coach and observing the players...I'm being professional and calm, but I'm not interacting with that coach. The smart coach realizes that they have an opportunity to vent a little, based on my location, but again they will be doing so to my backside and in a equally calm and professional manner.

The distinction may seem subtle, but by not saying anything but coach you have lost your box, this does usually work very well at calming the situation...key word being situation, not coach...by giving a location that provides the coach may be heard, but in a way that nobody gets the idea that you are working a good cop, bad cop deal and selling your partner down the river by comforting the coach.

The distinction is that in one case you're forestalling unsporting behavior...maybe...at least you're trying to; in the other case, you're simply ignoring unsporting behavior that has already occurred.

Some officials can't seem to see the difference, unfortunately imo.

This is all semantics...no one is talking about selling anyone down the river. I even said "not throwing my partner under the bus."

I have no problem with what you are saying. My point is, that good game management skills include good communication skills. Letting a coach "vent" to my back, without inciting the crowd, might work for you. I've done it too. I'll even reply to him if I feel its warranted. It might be all he needs. It depends on who the coach is, and what the problem was. Every situation is different.

Even how you tell the coach he has to sit can be done in a good way as well as a bad way. LOL I had a partner once tell the guy "SIT!" like he was a dog. Fortunately, I've never worked with that guy again.

Typing a position piece on a forum bbs is a tough way to communicate. I just get the feeling from this and other threads that some guys DO actually paint little whistles on their car doors like fighter pilots.

I use little magnets; they're easier to remove when the T gets retracted by the state or when I get a new car. ;)

Then you should not be an official. Often things happen at a very high emotional level in the game and it is up to us to keep things calm. Remember, we control the game, that is our responsibility. If you and the others want to stoop to the level of the coaches/players who are very upset at the moment, then go right ahead. Don't get mad at me because I might try to defuse the tense situation first in order to save face for everyone.

Officials should not be afraid to give a technical when a technical is deserved. Officials should not be afraid to toss a participant when it is deserving. However, officials should try to use discretion and not be to overly aggressive in tossing a coach. With that being said, let me give some examples.

1.) I T up a coach for constant complaining. After I give the T signal, coach says you're an azzhole. Head to the showers coach, ejected.

2.) I T up the coach for constant complaining. After I signal the T and report to the table. Coach is still complaining about the call. We come together as a crew to discuss what just happen and the next steps. The crew observes the coach is still livid about a call, sends the reporting official opposite table and begins Tech. Foul procedure. One official is left standing at the table.

This official standing at the table can just stand there and observe the FT procedures or if he hears the coach going on an on, can attempt to discuss the situation with the coach in an attempt to hear his concerns and give an answer. THIS OFFICIAL DOES NOT HAVE TO DO THIS! However, at the time the crew sent calling official opposite table, the crew could decide that the most senior person be left table side, or the person that has a relationship with the coach that's upset be left table side, or the R for the game. This is simply imo, intelligent officiating and yes, some of us do do this.

When talking to a coach in a situation like this.
Coach says; that official is an azzhole!
Official: coach, please don't talk like that about my partners.
Coach: he blew that call! this is BS!!!
Official: I did not see the play in question so I have no comment on that
Coach: you guys are horrible! This is BS!!!
Official: nobody's perfect coach, we don't need that type of talk out here.
Coach: you guys are still horrible! I don't care what you say or do!!!
Official: okay coach, I've heard enough, no more! Walk away.

I get partners together before we put ball back in play. Coach says another word, whack him, he's out of here. In most situations, this little dialog gets everybody back on the same page, coach airs his concerns and gets a much needed response from us, recognizing that we attempted to answer his question, even though he didn't get the answer he wanted. We can now resume the game with hopefully no further problems. In the rare cases where coach does a Bobby Knight on you. It's good-by to showers coach.

In my situation, we attempted to resolve the problem as a crew. We took the emotion and overreaction out of the equation. I think this looks good. I think it looks better. Coach got a warning before he was just tossed. You can put this in the report and it's defensible by the assigner. However, if you choose #1 above. It's your word against the coach and it is not defensible by your assigner. The coach might say he was talking to his player and told him to go to the hole! The ref thought I was talking to him.

My point is, always try to use discretion (benefit of the doubt) b4 tossing a coach because you never know. You do not know the relationship the assigner might have with the A/D and or the coach. They may attend the same church together, or families may get together at thanksgiving every year. I little discretion might keep you on the court, a quick trigger might land you on the bench for the big games, if you know what I mean.

The bigger the game, the bigger the stakes.

This is so stupid it's actually funny.

More sad than funny, Smitty. More sad than funny.

Just be thankful that he doesn't referee real basketball.

I'm a little troubled he's sort of on the same side of the argument as me!:D

I'm a little troubled that some folks actually take Old School's posts seriously. It's like watching Pro Wrestling or Jerry Springer.

Rec league? Excuse me? Perhaps you are the one that needs some professional help. Anyone that compares an NBA brawl to violence in a Catholic community, and argue they are one in the same needs professional help. And I still think Isiah started it.