Right, Wrong or T?

[ScottParks]

JV Boys tournament last week. A no-call (by my partner) went against the home team that the coach didn't agree with. It resulted in a turnover. The coach (in his box, but standing) complains loudly about the no call. As I go to the sideline to administer the throw-in, he's still complaining and says something to the effect of "you're cheating our kids". I quietly told the coach that was enough about the call and asked him if he was done. He said yes and we went on. Question: should this have been a T for his comments or was this handled fairly?

[MOFFICIAL]

Whenever your integrity is questioned loudly enough for you to hear it on the court I think you need to issue a "T".
Coaches have a responsibility to be an example of sportsmanship.
Coaches need to respect officials and officials need to administer the game to deserve that respect.

[paulis]

If you say to a coach "I've heard you coach, that's enough" and he/she continues, you really have no choice but to whack him. Once you draw your line and they choose to cross it, they have made a calculated choice and are willing to take the consequence.

[ChuckElias]

I have to be honest. One of the few things that really gets my emotions going during a basketball game is a comment like this one. I had a situation last year in a which coach said that I had "made up" a travel call against his team. I told him that if I heard anything like that comment again he would sit. He got the message.

Usually a coach is not really questioning your integrity. He's just frustrated and doesn't know what to say. So if you ask him, "Coach, are you saying that I'm cheating for the other team?" he'll always say no. And he'll realize (hopefully) that he doesn't want to cross that line.

In your situation, if the coach let it go at that point, I would be inclined to say that you did a good job of diffusing it. If he said it across the court, then the T would've been in order. I guess this is just another of those "you had to see it" things. But from your description, I think I would handle it the same way you did.

Chuck

[Mike Burns]

As I sit here in the calm of my living room and reflect upon your sitch I agree that you handled this very well. However, I don't think I would have held my whistle. If I heard a coach question my integrety durring a game in this way he would get whacked. Not that I am thin skinned or heavy handed, it is just that this coach "crossed my line" which is as follows...

Rules for whacking coaches:
1: Unsportsmanlike conduct. Especially language.
2: Questioning the integrety of the officials.
I'm sure I could add a few more, but this is my "line in the sand".
Mike

[JeffRef]

Originally posted by parkssa
JV Boys tournament last week. A no-call (by my partner) went against the home team that the coach didn't agree with. It resulted in a turnover. The coach (in his box, but standing) complains loudly about the no call. As I go to the sideline to administer the throw-in, he's still complaining and says something to the effect of "you're cheating our kids". I quietly told the coach that was enough about the call and asked him if he was done. He said yes and we went on. Question: should this have been a T for his comments or was this handled fairly?

Using my criteria for a "T"... the coach has made the transition from an "emotional" response to a "calculated" response which questions the integrity of the crew. Therefore...automatic "T". My only consideration before making the call would be - will this "T" have a direct impact on the outcome of the game? (e.g. - tie game/less than a minute to play)...if I feel the "T" could be the difference, (in private) "Coach, under different circumstances that disrespectful comment gets you a "T". If you forget about the play I'll forget I heard your comment and we'll let the players decide who wins this game".

[LarryS]

I don't think you hand out Ts like garage sale flyers, but I agree that this coach called your integrity into question. I would have hit him with it. As for the letting it go so the players could decide who won, I think the coach already decided that a player on the other team was going to decide by either making or missing the free-thows. Maybe I will mellow in this area with time, but a T is a T - IMHO.

[Brian Watson]

You didn't T him, he settled down, why question it?

Yes, I probably would have pulled the trigger, but you accomplished your goal, he quieted down.

Would giving him a T upset him more? Probably, so in this case I say bravo. You handled it correctly, everyone won and you didn't need to "punish" him.

[PublicBJ]

Originally posted by JeffRef

Using my criteria for a "T"... the coach has made the transition from an "emotional" response to a "calculated" response which questions the integrity of the crew. Therefore...automatic "T". My only consideration before making the call would be - will this "T" have a direct impact on the outcome of the game? (e.g. - tie game/less than a minute to play)...if I feel the "T" could be the difference, (in private) "Coach, under different circumstances that disrespectful comment gets you a "T". If you forget about the play I'll forget I heard your comment and we'll let the players decide who wins this game".

Why should the score of the game matter? If it's a "T" in any other situation, it should be a "T" in any situation. This gives coaches grounds to complain about inconsistency.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by PublicBJ

Why should the score of the game matter? If it's a "T" in any other situation, it should be a "T" in any situation. This gives coaches grounds to complain about inconsistency.

Consistency, in my opinion, is within the game, not from game to game. If no other T is called the rest of the game, consistency is not an issue. If a T is called (or has been), the no-T/T decision has been made already and this call should be consistent with any prior calls. And I do think that the skin should get a little thicker in a tight game, although each ref must have their line that cannot be crossed (e.g., profanity). This statement is right up against the line, and probably over it for many. But the way it was handled acomplished the true goal - let the players play, the coaches coach and the refs ref. The coach shut up and got back to coaching, without the need for a T. And the players decided the outcome.

[JeffRef]

Originally posted by PublicBJ

Why should the score of the game matter? If it's a "T" in any other situation, it should be a "T" in any situation. This gives coaches grounds to complain about inconsistency.

I know this will spark a lot of conversation...

Different game situations require different interpretations and therefore, sometimes...different decisions. To me, this is the most exciting part of refereeing. It's easy to call the balls and strikes with blinders on, oblivious to everything else going on in the game. The challenge is to make the correct call considering "all" factors.

[johnSandlin]

I would say things were handled properly. You warned after letting the coach get his peace. The coach responded positivley and the game progressed. I personally do not think a "T" was neccessary in this situation. You made the right decision by not issuing a "T"

[PublicBJ]

I'm not disagreeing with the original call, or how it was handled. Sounds like it was handled well.

I do have an issue that when X gets a "T" in one game, and doesn't in another. We all have "the line of death", to coin a phrase from Qaddafi, and it sounds like we're all pretty much on the same page on where that line is.

Consistency in this area of game administration/management should be across games, not just within a game. Consistency has been the number one complaint from coaches for as long as I can remember. Being on the same page provides this consistency across games, which is why the Fed and refereeing associations try to get their members to handle things in a similar way.

Obviously, this doesn't necessarily apply to all areas. (For example, physicality of the game, along with early calls, pretty much set the boundaries of what's going to be a foul, and what's not.) However, we do try to be consistent across games on what's a block vs. a charge. These types of items frequently come up as points of emphasis, and are usually topics of extended discussion at association meetings.

Same thing applies to a coaching box. Different officials allow different things, and nobody applies it per the rule. This has caused many unnecessary confrontation between coaches and officials. If everyone called it the same way, coaches would know where that line is, and it would rarely be a problem again.

In my opinion, we do ourselves a disservice in letting Coach A get away with something one day, but not in another day.

[williebfree]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Consistency, in my opinion, is within the game, not from game to game. If no other T is called the rest of the game, consistency is not an issue. If a T is called (or has been), the no-T/T decision has been made already and this call should be consistent with any prior calls. And I do think that the skin should get a little thicker in a tight game, although each ref must have their line that cannot be crossed (e.g., profanity). This statement is right up against the line, and probably over it for many. But the way it was handled acomplished the true goal - let the players play, the coaches coach and the refs ref. The coach shut up and got back to coaching, without the need for a T. And the players decided the outcome.

HAWKS COACH
First of all, welcome back!

I agree with your position on this situation. This is appropriate game management.

PublicBJ
I agree that there needs to be a parameter of consistency when issuing AUTOMATIC "Ts" (Profanity, questioning the integrity of the official, etc) and various other game-mgmt procedures.

Not trying to be cruel, but when it comes to coach comments about calls, you are going to find a range of reactions from officials. We are all individuals with different attitudes and philosophies. As well as "situational stresses" (Speeding ticket on the way to the game, wife is in labor, etc.). You are not going to get a straight and narrow "A = A" reaction from every official, every time. As stated ealier in this thread, being on the floor in these undefined situations (challenges) is what makes officiating such a "rush."

As for coaches complaining about consistency, WHO CARES! Adjust.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by JeffRef

I know this will spark a lot of conversation...

Different game situations require different interpretations and therefore, sometimes...different decisions. To me, this is the most exciting part of refereeing. It's easy to call the balls and strikes with blinders on, oblivious to everything else going on in the game. The challenge is to make the correct call considering "all" factors.

It will from me. This because I am so totality discussed with your injecting your personal opinion into a situation that can illegally change the outcome of the game. We are not talking about advantage or disadvantage here. We are talk about if something is a T or not. Time of the game has no baring on it.

Classic example question – Team A wins by 1. Coach A comes up to you as you are signing the book and calls you a pompous *** that almost cost him the game. What are you going to do?

You are on the court to administer the rules, not determine the outcome of the contest.