My Partner Asked Me If I Was T Happy
 

Saturday Night I had a Freshman/JV Doubleheader (Boys). In the Freshman game, the Home VARSITY coach was sitting on the bench. (I am LEAD) In the second quarter, the Frosh Coach was adamantly asking for 3 seconds. I went over to explain why it wasn't called. Player was making an offensvie move to the basket (Double-Pumping) and DID take a shot that he missed, got his own rebound, made a couple more Double Pumps---yep missed the shot and then got his own rebound again....Again double pumped a couple of time and finally scored and drew the foul.

After reporting to the table I went over to the coach to explain what I had. He was very upset because his best player got charged with the foul. I told him that as long as the player is making an offensive move, the three second count SUSPENDS and that double pumping is part of the attempt to shoot. He argued it a little bit, so I told him that was the rule and that I am not here to debate it. As I started to turn and move to the other side for the FTs, the Varsity coach started to pick the same argument. I began to bring out the dreaded stop sign when I realized that it wasn't the HC that was arguing but bench personnel. So I assessed a bench technical. No profanity. Just bench personnel arguing the same point after I already answered the HC. (It had started to get heated until I ended the first discussion)

My partner was approached by both the HC and the Varsity coach at the half, I overheard him say "I'll find out". So when we went to the locker room, he asked me what happened, and I explained the story just as I did here. He asked me if I was a little T happy. Now this is the third time we have worked together this year, and we are both some of the better JV level officials around and we work well together. I was taken aback by the question but gave him my reasoning why I didn't think so, since this was only my 3rd non-administrative T on a coach all year. (And the first with him as a partner)

Based on this explanation, does this sound to you like I was a little quick with the trigger?

Find another partner -- one with his lips not planted on the V coach's backside.

Different areas have different expectations of behavior. To answer your question, you need to determine how a respected Varsity official would have dealt with the situation had the Varsity coach started the discussion and the assistant finished it (in a Varsity game).

I'm just nit-picking here, but did the coach ask you a direct question to cause you to go give him an explanation? If he's just complaining don't go to him, it will only lead to problems. If they have a legitimate question, head on over. I had the bad habit of initiating conversations with coaches early in my career. You're going to bring on more problems than you are going to solve if you are the one initiating the interaction.

Nope, the technical foul was deserved. But.......

You went over to the coach because you did want to debate it. Unfortunately, no amount of debate will ever change a coach's mind in a situation like this. Your "debate" is like waving a red flag in his face. You'd be much better off to just make the call and then turn away and let him mutter to himself. If he goes too far, that's when you have to get get into a warning.

Ignats, silence will never get you into real trouble out there. Jmo.

I was basically in front of his bench as I was reporting the foul to the table. He asked me point blank why I didn't call three seconds. A valid question on its own, despite this situation. I went to answer him for three reasons:

1. He asked a direct question about the reason for a call or non-call. Game Management dictates that I at least answer a direct question from a coach about a specific call.
2. If I ignore that same question, he will take a more antagonistic view of me because he would feel that I disrespected him. (and he would have a case)
3. He will continue to whine about three seconds which will annoy us to the point of whacking him anyway:p .

Coach: "WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL 3 SECONDS??!"
You: "Because he didn't violate the rule"

Then walk away.

Not bad. A little too flip and smarta$$y for me, but not bad.

How is that flip or smartass?

It's a concise explanation, period. Trying to drag a coach through a rules lesson never works. He doesn't want to hear about the rule, he wants to know why you screwed his player.

Don't be a willing paricipant.

Great answer Dan.

Its obvious by my non-call that he didn't commit the violation so that is why I think that answer would be a little flip. Personally, I will always answer a coach's question about what I saw, if its done with respect. This time, it just went out of control and was handled with the T. I had no problems with the coach at all after that and he never really was the issue. I wasn't concerned that he didn't LIKE my answer, as I had started to walk away. The T was on his bench, not directly on him.

As a somewhat humorous aside, my partner DID call three seconds about 5:00 later ON THEM!!!! Now THAT was an unpopular call!!!!!:D

You handled the situation well Ignats; hopefully your partner will change his views. At the sub-Varsity level, give coaches and players less slack anyway. The Varsity coach was bench personnel - very nice to recognize that!

I agree. I agree with everything that you did for the most part. Where you may have been able to get out of giving the T would have been when the V coach began questioning. The first complaining I hear in OUR direction from non-head coaches is a warning. The next time I give the T. The easiest thing for me to do is IGNORE them. I have no problem with your T. However, next time give the bench the STOP sign, ask the coach to control his bench, and IGNORE until you need to WHACK!!!

...so you decided to debate the intricacies of the rule with the coach anyway.

That worked out well, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Here's some advice, you can take or leave:

Keep explanations as short and simple as possible except for unusual situations. A no call on a 3 second violation is hardly unusual.

Dan,

I think you are jumping to a conclusion. Here's a synopsis of what happened.

1. Foul
2. I report it
3. Coach asked question
4. I answered it with one sentence.
5. Coach didn't like it, but I didn't care and had started to walk away.
6. Bench personnel didn't like answer and tried to argue point
7. Turned back around, not to debat but warn the HC
8. Realized it was bench personnel who were arguing
9. Whacked the bench

There never was a debate.

This is very good advice. I had to learn this lesson the hard way.

Much as in the "stop sign" debate, that answer might work for some, but I would never use it. I prefer a "5 words or less" rules answer --"Starts over on a try" or "not while he's shooting".

Tells the coach that you saw the player in the lane, that you were counting, but there's a specific reason not to call the violation.

I agree that you should not have (and apparently did not) debate the rule with the coach or his bench, but we should debate it here, no? I don't agree with your interpretation of the rule. If a player is in the lane and pump faking for a long time (for example, more than 3 seconds), isn't that, by rule, a violation?

I certainly agree that if a player has been in the lane for a couple of seconds and looks like she or he is making an offensive move, I'm not looking to nit-pick the three seconds, but I just disagree that the proper rule interpretation is that officials HAVE to suspend the three second count when a player is faking attempts.

Disagree, especially at this level, with this call.

The coach isn't interested in learning anything new about the 3 second rule. He's PO'ed because he thinks you screwed him. Frankly I wouldn't even honor this complaint with *any* answer, it's so silly. IMO telling him why you didn't make the call for this particular situation opens you up to criticism when he thinks you're contradicting yourself later. Or even worse he'll disagree with your explanation as happened to Ignats.

Anyway, this dead horse isn't worth beating. Ignats gave his explanation to the coach and still ended up T'ing the assistant. Good T in any event.

That seems to be more than one sentence. I think you have been given two approaches, Dan's and Bob's. I think one of the two would work if the coach asks a question. Of course, if the coach isn't asking the question calmly I would start by saying, "Coach, please don't yell at me anymore tonight."

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Ignats75
I told him that as long as the player is making an offensive move, the three second count SUSPENDS and that double pumping is part of the attempt to shoot. He argued it a little bit, so I told him that was the rule and that I am not here to debate it.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Does anyone else believe that that is incorrect?

As someone who's called 2 3-second violations in 3 years, I'd say it's close enough.

Have to say I'm with Dan on this one. The intracacies of the 3-second rule are impossible to explain without sounding like a moron to the coach, so why bother?

Rule 4 Section 41 SHOOTING, TRY, TAP
 

Art 5-8 has to do with taps and is not germain to this discussion.

Art 3 seems to include the pump fakes.

If I pump fake and then pass to my teammate, did I start and end a try for goal?

If I am fouled during this action, do I get two FTs?

Just wait till JR shows up. :D

I would give two shot if you were fouled on a pump fake. If you were to pump fake and then pass, I would probably call 3 seconds on you. Again, Art 3 of the definition of a try is the start of a shot. You can go up with a picture perfect jump shot and pass out of it at the top of your jump. Its still a try until you change it into a pass attempt.

I wouldn't. The shooter has not started a try. That foul is on the floor.

If, in your judgement, it's a pump fake, why would you award FTs? The name implies that it's not a shot - it's a FAKE.

I guess this would be one of those situations where you had to be there to witness the action. If it was clearly a pump fake, then I would probably go with it on the floor. But if the foul was enough to possibly cause the shooter to withhold the shot, that might be a different story. It would be hard for me to say that it would definitely be one or the other and call it that way every time.

You and deecee need to get together and share your ideas on bench decorum. :rolleyes: Ignoring the poor behavior may be the easiest thing to do, but it is not the best.

It is also a poor policy to always give a warning for the first complaining from the asst. coaches. The word with quickly get around amongst your local coaches that you never T the first complaint, so they will know that they get a free one.

Now go PM tomegun and tell him that you recommended the stop sign.:eek:

BTW what is the difference in the penalty between ignoring the coach and giving him the stop sign?

That makes no sense at all. If it causes the shooter to withhold the shot, the shooter then never shot. The foul would obviously have to be before the shot. And if the shooter never shot, you can't have a foul "in the act of shooting".

You would be wrong, as others have stated. If it's a "fake", then it ain't a "shot".

I'm not sure. The definition of a try says that it starts when the shooter "begins the motion that habitually precedes the release of the bal" It does not say the try begins with the LAST motion before the release of the ball. Might be worth asking the assignor of one of my conferences who is also one of the rules interpretors for the OHSAA. If I can find him under all this snow!

The rule does NOT say that a try starts when the shooter begins a FAKE motion of what would habitually precede the release of the ball.

If you KNOW it's a fake, by definition, it can't be a try, because you have definite knowledge he's not taking a shot.

If your logic were correct, then a player dribbling from one end of the court to the other with only five seconds remaining and attempting a try would have started his try with the first movement that he made in the backcourt because due to the time left he was going for the basket.

It means the movement that begins the actual try. The one where the ball is released on the attempt to throw it into the goal. It does not include previous fakes anymore than it includes previous dribbles. Please notice that the rule says "release of the ball."

An even better way of looking at this is, does one NEED to make a fake in order to release the ball on a try?

Of course not. The movement that the rule is talking about is the necessary movement that one must do to shoot such as bring the ball up or turning the body towards the basket. Pivoting is included.

If it's a pump "fake", how do you know the shooter's intent when he was fouled? If he's fouled at the start of the pump or at the top who's to say he did not intend to follow through on "THAT" attempt? The "PumP" is another definition of starting a try or faking a try, but again, who's to say when he got fouled, whether at the beginning of "that" pump or the end that he wasn't going to continue. In my opinion, each pump is a start of a try, and if gets fouled his intent was a "try".

I also agree with whoever said "A VERBAL WARNING TO THE HEAD COACH TO CONTROL HIS BENCH" wouldn't have hurt as much as popping him with "T" on the first infraction.

Not true.

A try begins when a player brings the ball up to his hands and begins to perform a jump shot or layup. (I was going to say something about jumping, but then the image of Zadrunas Ilgauskas came into my mind:D ) Dribbling the ball is not part of the motion habitually used to shoot. The motion for a pump fake IS the same motion as habitually used...thats what makes it a fake. But a pump fake fits the definition of a try. Can you apply retroactive logic to something to determine if it applies? Do you blow your whistle when you see a foul, but wait to see what happens before you determine the type of foul? The evidence must be concurrent. The issue is whether a pump fake is part of a shot and what is the difference between a pump fake foul and a foul where the player never releases the ball because he heard the whistle.

No one would ever imply that dribbling was part of a shot.:confused:

That statement makes no sense either. The "pump" is not part of "any" definition of starting a try that I've ever seen or been aware of. If you think that is a definition, then find a rule somewhere and cite it. You can start a try or you can fake a try. They're two completely different things. The rule book differentiates between them also. A foul after a try is started is is a foul in the act of shooting. A foul while <b>faking</b> a try is foul <b>before</b> the act of shooting has begun.

Your "opinion" is not backed up either by anything in the rule or case book, or by the way the play is usually taught to be called either. I'd run your opinion by your local rules interpreter if I were you, Joe.

Yup, and if the player <b>DOESN'T</b> perform a jump shot or layup, and a defender did not <b>stop</b> that player from performing a jump shot or layup, then you <b>DON'T</b> have a try. It's that simple.

Again, picture the act of the "pump", especially in the lane. Can that not be seen as the start of the try?

A1 pumps, B1 jumps to A1's pump fake, B1 comes down on A1 while A1 starts his "pump" again, but his feet never got up off the ground. Are we giving A1 2 shots? He darn sure wasn't going to pump fake B1 again was he? Like I said in my previous post, how do we know that A1 or the player pumping wasn't intending on shooting at that time of the foul? Especially while the player is in the lane or under the basket? Because in the initial post, that was the case (3-seconds or not)).

I am assuming you meant "jump shot" not jump stop. When you say perform, do you mean complete? Because he doesn't have to complete a jump shot or a layup, he doesn't even have to release the ball to be in the act of shooting or try.

Sooo...still feeling comfortable with the simple-easy-to-understand explanation of the 3 second rule you gave the coach? ;)

(cheap shot I know, but I couldn't stop myself :) )

The second time that this player makes a move to come up is the start of his try. The first was a fake. If the contact occurs before he starts his second upward motion, then I am not awarding him FTs for being in the act of shooting.

There are no FTs for being in the act of faking!

You're correct. I mis-read the post. Sorry for the quick response before reading the reaponse.

LOL:D

At my age, my short term memory goes. Lets see if I can remember verbatim what I said to him.......

"Coach the count suspends when the player starts his move to the basket, and resets after the shot." He answered with some nonsense and I interrupted him with, "Coach I'm not here for a debate." and I turned away....thats when the VHC got the whack.

Seriously though, do you really think there is anything wrong with what I said? Not that I am going to change my style...but I always am curious about how others would handle the same situation. As a referee, I always like to see how others handle things.

T Him Up!
 

I usually work JV/Varsity double headers where the varsity assistant coach is the head coach in the JV game. I make it a point to give a T the first time the varsity coach says anything during the JV game since he is bench personnel. This sets the tone for the night that I am not going to take anything from either bench in either game.

lol...well put.

I could accept that if you can convince me that it doesn't violate the definition of 4-41-3

Ignats, in your original post, you stated <i>"After reporting to the table, I went over to the coach to explain what I had."</i> Of course, it's gonna turn into a debate. You knew from the git-go that the coach didn't agree with your call. You shoulda also known that, in these types of situations, no amount of explanation was gonna change his mind. Jmo, but you're much better off to simply get away from an irate coach than approaching him and trying to reason with him. If he goes too far, warn him and then whack him. But at least give him a chance to cool himself down.

Alright. When, in a "fake", is the ball ever <b>released</b>, as per the language used in that article? If you <b>never</b> intend to release the ball, it is <b>never</b> a try.

Hey, my short-armed friend. He wasn't irate. He asked the question, "Why wasn't there a 3 second call there?" A valid question, asked in a respectful enough tone. Why wouldn't I answer his question, particularly when I had to walk past him to get to the foul reporting area? And after I turned away, he didn't say anything else until he heard my whistle for a T. The T was on the bench, not him.

Hey, if you said something <b>while</b> you were walking by the bench, no problem. Or if you said something <b>while</b> you were walking back into position, again no problem. However, if you went <b>over</b> to the coach <b>after</b> you reported, as you stated in your original post, then I think that you just made a mistake. That was my point. Do <b>NOT</b> go over to the bench area and the coach to hand out an explanation after you've reported. Keep t'hell away from the bench. No good can come of it, especially since you already know that they don't agree with your call.

Jmo, Ignats. Take it fwiw.

Well put. I agree.

Absolutely not! It ended the debate didn't it! Mission accomplished, and now seat-belt the Freshman coach. I like the no nonsense technical, I'm starting to lean this way myself because you don't show any emotion. You just out the clear blue, WHACK! for argueing with me, or technically, constant complaining. Another reason I like this technical is because I'm not debating 3-sec calls with anybody. If you don't check this right away, you will be hearing it the rest of the game, and it gets louder and louder.

I do have a weapon, I won't call it a secret weapon but it's something that works 90% of the time and I don't have to give a T, especially with calls like this. Feel free to use it. I grab my whistle and I look at the complaining coach and I'll say; "do you want to ref this game today?" "Tell you what, you ref the game and I'll sit down and coach." Most of the time the coaches will settle down and let me do my job, and it is my job to determine what is a 3-sec violation today, not theirs and I really don't care how you feel about it.

I'm not so sure I agree with your explanation about suspending the 3 second count based on the player pumping and headfaking. I don't think I would tell a coach that either. The count can get suspended if there's an interrupted dribble or player loses control of the ball. We do give the player a chance to score but it is possible to pick up a 3-sec violation, standing there headfaking. It's rarely called but it can happen.

Nope, the count does not get suspended, by rule, during loss of player control. As long as team control remains, the count continues. Feel free to ask a real official in your area; you know, the guys in stripes who have actually read the rule book.

This might work with rec league coaches, but I can virtually guarantee if you try this with a high school or college coach, you have at least an 82.5783468018% chance of moving to a technical foul within 3.7 seconds (not taking into account the time it takes tomegun to issue and retract his stop sign.)

I hope that you identified the offender on the bench and charged that person with a directly technical foul and the Head Coach with an indirect.

The obvious answer to "Tell you what, you ref the game and I'll sit down and coach" is "I might as well, seeing the sh!tty job you're doing". And in Old School's case, the coach would probably be right. :)

Yup, never say nonsense like that to any coach outside of rec leagues. Even in rec leagues, it's not a good idea because you're just baiting the coach right back. Either deal with it or ignore it.

:p :D <dummy text>

No - it's "Let's switch places. You come out here and ref and I'll sit on the bench and act like a jackass."

Davism #3. :D

OK...Proving that I am not infallible:D :p , I have heard back from my assignor/interpretor. Pump fakes should not cause the three point count to suspend. Only an actual move to the basket should do that. Obviously, that also clears up my confusion regarding shooting fouls.

I humbly bow to you others who were right.:cool:

So your assignor is always right then?

Can't be. It's my assignor that is always right, at least in my area. :D Actually I'm lucky to have an excellent assignor, but I just had to jump in on that one.

Glad that you finally came around. :) It is okay that we disagree with each other from time to time. It is often the stimulus for how we learn and improve.

We do however reserve the right to blast you with strange pictures of squirrels and other assorted items for your transgression. :D

Disagree, there is no team control during a loss or interrupted dribble. If players are scrapping for the ball, I'm not going to blow my whistle 3 seconds in the lane and he or a member of the offense doesn't have control of the ball.

You better believe it!!!:cool: Isn't that right sir?:p

Actually I have differnt assignors for each conference that I work. This one specifically is also an official rules interpretor for the OHSAA.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Exactly where did you learn THAT piece of information????

You already know what to do? Yeah, right.

NFHS rule 4-12-2 --<i>"A team is in control of the ball when a player of a team is in control, while a live ball is being passed among teammates <b>and during an interrupted dribble</b>".</i>

NFHS rule 4-12-3- "Team control continues until:
(a) the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.
(b) The opponents secure control.
(c)The ball becomes dead."

NFHS rule 4-12-4-- "While a ball remains live, a loose ball <b>always</b> remains in control of the <b>team</b> whose player last had control, unless it is a try or tap for goal".

If you actually owned a rule book, you would have known that. It's a basic.


-Edited to remove the same comment that Bob J. removed....

That would be a bad guarantee. I have done this many of times with college coaches and the like and the results have always been the same. It ended the discussion and I didn't have to access a T. To me it is a unique and intelligent way to say, I'm done talking about this subject and we're going to move on. Now, in the rare case where we can't move on.

This type of response doesn't surprise me coming from you JR. You have that throw an official under the bus mentallity. Now tell me, how does it feel? Go ahead and share.

However, in the rare event that a coach was to make a statement like this. He's done for the day. Doesn't matter how many technicals he got. If he has zero T's for the day, he's still ejected. Remember, you don't have to give a coach 2 technical before he's ejected. In fact, if he was to say something like that to me. I would go into my old baseball umpire routine and give him the hee-hoe, you're out of here! mechanic. And yes, I do have a flare for the dramatic when you get stupid with me.

Peace

1) Not applicable in your case. You're not an official.

2) Great idea. Bait the coach into saying something and then toss him when he does. Excellent advice for the aspiring rec league official. Warning: Not to be used elsewhere though.

I've made this call, and guess what, I have the rules to back me up. One of maybe 4 3-second calls I've made this season; probably the only one I've made this year above the middle school level.

First of all, it's not unique just because you haven't seen anyone else use it. It might just mean it's not effective. Second of all, just because you think it's witty doesn't mean it's intelligent. There's a difference, but when you grow up, you'll know that.

Thirdly, you misspelled intramural again.

I'm going to throw this out here and then I'm going to leave it at that. I have better things to do than to spend my day argueing with referees who like to throw other referees under the bus. If you want to call a 3-second lane violation during an interrupted dribble, that is you. Do what you think is right. I'm not going there. However, the rule also states.

"When a team secures control, that team remains in control until the ball is in flight...., or an opponent has secured control. This has an influenence on rules such as team control fouls, 3-seconds violations, and frontcourt/backcourt. No team (repeat JR), no team has control while the ball is dead, during a throw-in or jump, nor during the period following any of these acts when the ball is slapped away from other players in an attempt to secure control.

Thank you.

Note the wordds "following any of these acts" where "these acts" refers to dead ball, thorw-in, or jump. It doesn't refer to "interrupted dribble" or "loose ball during team control"

In practice, I agree that three-seconds is rarely called during an interrupted dribble. But, by rule the count continues.

Well, now that you've found a rule book, we need to work on your reading comprehension. It's a start.

Let's start with you first colorized statement. Team control continues; this influences rules such as three second violations. Guess what this means, three second counts continue as long as there is team control.

Now, your second colorized statement. Read what comes before it; "no team has control while the ball is dead, during a throwin or jump ball," it then continues to say, "nor during the period following any of these acts." This means, there is no team control following a throwin if players are still swatting at it trying to get it. It doesn't mean team control ends while players swat at the ball.

It's a valiant effort, but the rule book is apparently over your head.

:eek: A 3-sec call during an interrupted dribble?

Wouldn't this, by some obscure definition somewhere, be labeled a "game interrupter?"

:D (sorry, couldn't help myself....!)

Yes, it surely does say that. And just as surely, you don't have a clue what those rules statements are actually telling you. All of that is <b>ONLY</b> relevant when there has been <b>NO</b> team control established yet. It has got absolutely <b>nothing</b> to do with any situation that occurs <b>AFTER</b> team control has been established and <b>BEFORE</b> it is lost. That includes a 3-second call on an interrupted dribble.

Don't try to fake something that you don't know, Old School. This isn't a rec league that you're dealing with here. There's real, live officials on this forum. People that own real, honest-to- goodness rule books too, and actually know what's in them.

Yes.<i></i>

I officiate football as well, and I also coach a junior high football team. I had an official say that exact line to me one time and he was quite surprised when I said "Yes" and stuck out my hand for his whistle. He didn't know what to do, and then just walked away muttering. I doubt he still uses that line.

Oh sure, let's change the meaning from what's stated to what you think it should be. To hell with what's written, right?

Nobody ever said this was a rec league forum but you. I don't doubt that there's live officials out here, but I will have to question the real part. You see real officials don't try so hard to discredit other officials for no good reason. You see real officials have more integrity than what you and most the others display, but that's JMO. It is also my opinion that real officials don't try to show off there knowledge by berating others, but then again, that's JMO.

OS -- right is right and wrong is wrong

in this case wrong is OS.

if i can accept it so can you.

Okay. Until now, I subscribed to Juulie's theory about you being a former college athlete who dabbled in officiating. Now, I'm less convinced that you've even been to college. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as I know plenty of smart people who haven't been to college.

However, your reading comprehension seems a bit lacking. Go back and read the rule you quoted. It does say what JR says it does. If you can't see that, then you're a lost cause.

1) There is only <b>one</b> meaning stated. Unfortunately, you don't understand that meaning, or the explanation of the meaning.

2) That's obvious.

I would have told you like I told this one coach. First thing you gonna have to do is go get a shirt. The next thing you're going to need is somebody to give you an assignment because this assignmnet is mined and you can't have it. However, I do have an extra whistle! The key thing here is now we're not talking about the play or call in question anymore. I have gotten your attention off the call and on to something else in which I'm in control of, even if it's briefly, but the conversation is now going in a different direction and my hidden message is clear. I've taken about all I'm going to take from you tonight. Notice how I never said that.

so how long did you have to "mine" to get this assignment...and the fact that it was offered to him to me means you better be able to follow through with your offer.....
is it really a hidden message anymore if you bring it out in the open....and it is kind of like a joke that you have to explain to people...it kind of loses the effect...

all I can really say is WOW:rolleyes:

Now I'm just laughing.

Yeah, but now as a coach I realize you don't mean what you say. Why did you offer me your whistle and ask me if I wanted to do it if I also needed a shirt and to call your assignor? Your whole argument lacks any intelligence and now I really know that you have no clue what you are doing. If you are so rattled that in one minute you offer me your whistle but in the next second you say the job is yours, it just lets me know you are clueless and now, because I have a big heart, I will let you continue bumbling around because there is no need to embarass you any further.

Wow, Big2Cat, I'm impressed. It didn't take you long to come that realization.

Actually it's just the opposite. This type of back and forward goes on all the time in basketball games. Come on, as the coach, don't tell me you're not trying to work me as the official. Now, I just worked you! The reason I offered you the whistle is to get you to stop complaining about the 3 seconds call, which I was successful. Now that we are on to something else, I can now get safetly out of the conversation without having to give you a T. Now if you make a dump-azz comment like what JR suggested, you be headed to the locker room and I still worked you.

Coach, I know you're looking for an angle to get back at me, but this is one of the reasons why I use it. Call it intelligent or not, but there's not a lot of places you can go with this one. It's gets straight to the point, like jumping to the end game. You can either leave by way of ejection or shut up and let me do my job.

Then why not just say "be quiet or you're gone?" By offering me your whistle you are telling me you are not up for the job, and because I am in complete agreement I agree.

You are working someone here, but it is only yourself. You have made it clear that:

1. You want me to ref because you can't
2. You didn't mean what you said because you retracted your offer
3. Because your bluff got called and you have nowhere to run, you will toss me from the game.

Seems like a good strategy. I advise all young officials to embrace it. In fact, if you are new, take it a step further. Bring an extra shirt and have your cell phone with you so you can call your assignor and offer the job away.

What is clear here Big2Cat is I successfully changed the arguement. Mission accomplish. The issues you are raising now is not important enough for me to answer, back to the game.

A wise man once said: there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially a Big Cat!

Peace

You misspelled juvenile. I'm just saying....

lol -- I love old school

the best is when he interjects with phases like "the key is" -- "what is clear" -- "i dont know"

Not in my games it doesn't. "Coach, if you have a question, I'll be happy to answer it. Otherwise, stay in your box and coach your team." I have no tolerance for unsporting behavior.

There are times I get a laugh out of your posts. Its sort of like driving slowly past an auto accident. You can't help yourself, even though its ugly. Then there's other times I realize that this kind ignorance is dangerous.:rolleyes: Particularly when new officials read your crap.

Don't worry, even the Newbies see right through him.

Not really. In fact, the argument has ended (not changed) because you proved me right by offering me your whistle. You have also proved my point that you were totally wrong and incompetent. Thankfully you have a partner who might have a clue.

Still stuck on the whistle thing. I tell you, that's a good one to use but you got to know how to apply it. I better issue a caution with this tactic. Not for the meek and weak at heart. Also, do not use this at home as serious injury could result, see the anger in Big2Cat comments. Use in bball game, very effective, guaranteed to end the discussion. Has also been applied successfully on fans too! Last, who am I? Nobody! I'm just telling you what worked for me. You can hate me for saying it on this forum, you can hate for using it, but you can't hate me for reporting the results. I'm just saying it worked for me. It may not work for you. Use with caution. If you're not willing to back up what you say or stand behind your word, then you probably shouldn't use it, then again, you probably shouldn't be an official either, IMHO....

Don't shoot the messenger!

You forgot "<b>Never</b> to be used by real officials outside of rec league games."

Don't shoot the messenger.:)

JMO.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Does it take a tough experienced official to handle Adult Men's Rec ball because the players and coaches are so abusive to referees; or Are the players and referees so abusive in Adult Men's REc because they've had to put up with referees like Old School? Who could blame them?

well that answers it.....in your little fantasy story, when bigcat offered to take you up on your offer, you balked. IOW you didn't back up what you said, or stand behind your word. So does this mean you shouldn't be an official??

you said it not me so.....ummmm
Don't shoot the messenger :D

No, if the players and coaches are abusive to officials you (1) don't assign officials to that rec league if you're an assignor, and (2) don't accept games in that rec league if you're an official. If those leagues want good officiating, they have to clean up their act. If they don't care, they get the Old Schools of the world....people who officiate in a rec league for 10 years without owning a rulebook(by his own admission).