|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 01:07am
|
|||
|
|||
(California) Are association is under the impression, due to a new rule this year, that when we meet with the captains, prior to the start of the game, the coach of each team, or a member of his/hers coaching staff must be present.
But a number of coaches, that come in from outside our area, are telling us that we're the only ones doing it. Are we missing something???? jc 
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 01:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the whole captains' meeting is more or less optional, by rule (but I think almost everyone does it).
The new mechanic says that a representative can (not must) attend (I don't have the specific mechanic here). The *head coach* must verify the uniforms and equipment. This is one of the areas where the states are given some freedom to implement different specific rules. For example, some states, I see by this board and others, dictate a specific time for the meetings. Here in Illinois, we don't, but when we have it, a team rep *must* attend (i.e., Illinois has made the optional mandatory).
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 01:37am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: What's the big deal? Every game I've done this year I have had the Coach and the Captains of each team meet. Not one Coach has declined. In fact many times I have the Coach get their Captains and meet us in front of the Scorer's table. ( Now I don't have to chase the Captains down.) Alaska Ref, I've read your postings. You seem very personable and knowledgeable about the game of basketball. Surely a "few questions from the coaches" wouldn't frazzle you! This is a great time to show them how you can interact in non-game situations.
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 03:49am
|
|||
|
|||
So far i haven't found a coach or assistant willing to attend the pre-game with the captain's. I believe that the coach's are asked but it is not mandatory that they attend.
Go figure, what does the NF have in mind asking a coach to a meeting at 3 minutes before game time, what happens if the coach has questions and then the other coach doesn't want to be left out so he asks some questions! ------------------ Don
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 10:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The new rule, as I understand it, is that we are to "invite" the coach or the coach's representative/designee to join the captains' conference. They don't have to come or send someone, and most do not. However, in polling our association's membership at a recent meeting, at least 7-8 out of 50 in attendance said they have had coaches send someone. A few other coaches have indicated "disappointment" that the refs did not follow the rule and invite them. So, we generally agreed that we SHOULD continue to invite the coaches, since we've been directed to do so, even though it rarely results in an extra person joining the conference.
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 11:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here in New York, at least with our board, we have dropped the meeting with the team captains. Instead now when we go and meet the coaches, we ask them who the team speaking captain is, if their players are properly uniformed, and remind them of them of sportsmanship.
I'm sure that different boards are doing it different, but this is what we decided to do.
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 02:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
While the meeting is suggested, I've handled the 'proper dressed' question at 11 minutes before the start by going to each coach and asking the pertinent questions. I also remind them of Rule 10-5 and ask if they have any questions.
If they want to talk about a rule interpretation or about the other team I immediately bring in the other coach. Many times I get both coaches together when they are talking prior to the game. I believe this rule mirrors the one used in softball where at the pregame at home plate we ask the coaches if everyone is properly equipped. EDITORIAL: this is just another case where we as officials are handling situations where each school's management should be doing their job. END OF EDITORIAL.
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2000, 02:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
During our interpretation meeting, the speaker got up and said, "I don't know about you, but I don't want the coaches there" I haven't had a coach attend a meeting yet. If they want to they are definitely welcome, but I think it is a time to talk to just the captains. I talk to coaches at another time about their uniforms.
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2000, 12:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Over the last five years, I have introduced myself to each head coach when I go to sign the official scorebook and check lineups at the 10 minute mark. At that time I tell advise the coaches that we will have pregame conference at the 7 minute mark with him/her and their captain(s). I then return to the far side and continue to observe warmup. At 7 minutes my partner and I walk across the court. The coaches know what we are coming for and in 90% of the cases call out to their captains before we even get there. In the last five years (in the St Louis area) I have had head coaches and captains attend all pregame conferences.
------------------
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2000, 03:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: divey, I'm not trying to answer for Alaska Ref, but let me show you how contrary the NF is. A few years ago, officials were required to stand opposite the table for warm-ups. The intent was to prevent 'questions' and conversations from the coaches. The NF, this year, moves the 'foul reporting area' toward the center of the court. Again, the intent was to prevent conversations of any type between officials and coaches. The NF wants us to exit the playing area quickly after the conclusion of the game -- again to avoid conversations. The dressing rooms in most areas have a 'closed door' policy which prevents coaches wanting to enter and ask questions. During timeouts, we are instructed to communicate with 'captains', not the coaches. Again, we are to avoid conversations with the coaches. So what is it with the NF? I don't know, but my experience has proven to me that our mouths usually get us in more trouble than our ability. But, I personally think that the NF 'booted' this one, and I wouldn't be surprised if the idea gradually disappears. It is by all means contradictary, when compared to other mechanics in relation to communication with coaches. One additional key note to your statement, "... a great time to show them how you can interact in a non-game situation." What is this all about? This is basketball -- not debate! I know some great officials that aren't strong communicators, and I know some weak officials who are great communicators. My philosophy -- the least said, the least likelihood that you will be misquoted. KDM
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 02:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: KDM Who said anything about DEBATING the Coach? Part of being a well rounded official is ones ability to interact with PEOPLE! Rules knowledge, proper mechanics, staying in good physical shape, proper attire, character are all just some attributes of a good official. KDM stated some officials "are great officials but aren't strong communicators". Then "some weak officials that are great communicators". Very true, but if those are your ONLY choices what catagory official are you in? My point is, we can all strive to ADD varying attributes to our game. The more attributes the better the official. If you are "weak" in an area of officiating don't just accept it - work on improving it. If you are "weak" in communicating don't just accept it - work on improving that also. To be able to talk - not "debate" - with game management and coaches, in a professional manner, can only increase our credibility.
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 06:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: divey, First, the dictionary calls 'debate' as A FORMAL DISCUSSION. It isn't necessarily 'argumentive'. My initial reply was to outline the contradictions of the NF in regard to communication between officials and coaches, plus to re-enforce 'Alaska Ref's' reply. Since you feel that you are correct with your un-frazzled responses, I now have decided to verify the information of your responses via the 1999-2000 officials manual. Surely it will answer the questions about (1)'coaches asking questions before the game' and (2)'the pre-game conference is a great time to show them how you can interact in non-game situations' and (3)'that MY credibility is increased when coaches and I talk in a professional way'. These are basically your 3 comments. Let's see, here we go, page 7 (3rd sentence), ...carrying on long conversations with him/her BEFORE, during, or after the game may give the appearance of favortism. Uh-oh, not what I'm looking for. But I'll keep looking. Okay, page 9, CARDINAL PRINCIPALS, sub-letter j. .....Do NOT fraternize with coaches of fans BEFORE or during the game. Hang in there pal, I'll find it. Maybe page 11, number 35. '...officials should NOT comment ... relative to games. NEVER discuss the play or players of an opponent with any coach.' Ooohh! That not the one I'm looking for. It's here somewhere ......... Okay, how about page 16, number 103, sub-letter c. ... AVOID unnecessary visiting ... following introduction. I'm sorry divey, I can't seem to find the proper endorsements of your responses. But I'm sure you will help! KDM
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 08:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
Hey KDM this "debate" is kinda fun.
First off, your definition of "debate" wasn't even a definition. It was merely part of a sentence taken out of context. i.e. :the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure. SOUNDS LIKE A DEBATE TO ME! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary- The first definition of debate is--a contention by words or arguments. It goes on to state, and now I'll take words out of context, fight, contend, to argue about, to engage(an opponent). I'll stick with my original statement, I'm not out before the game to "debate" with the Coaches. Which brings us back to the question of having a pre-game meeting with both coaches. Every statement you quoted or took out of context from the Officials Manual has nothing to do with the NF's recommendation on a pre-game meeting with the Coaches and players. I suppose we will interpret and apply the Rules the way we each see fit. Hopefully the end result will be for the good of the game. The DEBATE shall go on! Dan Ivey
|
|
Mon Jan 31, 2000, 11:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan,
I've got to take exception with your statement that ..."we'll interpret rules and apply them differently...". This is a dangerous statement as we shouldn't interpret rules in any way except according to the rulebook and the casebook. If we cannot find the answer in those two publications, then we must seek guidance from NFHS or NCAA. Now, we may apply them differently, as they pertain to advantage/disadvantage, The Tower Principle, time of game, etc. This will help us in our goal for coaches to believe we are consistent from game to game and from official to official.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
