Pushing/Posting
 

Freshman boys tournament. Post players beating each other up. We call it on gold, then on blue, then on gold again. Gold coach says, "He's posting up!"

"Coach, he was pushing and clearing out."
"No, he was posting up!"
"He was pushing. He's allowed to maintain his position, but he's not allowed to move the other player"
"Well then how's he supposed to stop him from getting the ball?"

Second half, same routine. If they'd been fouling out, this kid wouldn't have even been playing by then (I hate that!). Same explanations to coach, who clearly didn't have a clue.

Next game, same gold team, different opponent. SAME EXACT GAME STYLE, SAME FOULS ON SAME POST PLAYER!! Same explanations. Second half, again same stuff, same calls, same stupid excuses. no questions, no attempt to understand or adjust, no learning at all. I was tempted to toss the coach just for being an idiot!!

Okay, that's my rant. Now, might I have done anything differently that could have taught the kid a lesson and given him a better understanding of how to properly play the post? I expect trying to teach the coach anything is hopeless.

What was being called, how was it being called on the other courts, in the other games ? Was the philosophy summer fun, become varsity players, get to know your teammates ? Did you have real basketball coaches coaching, assistant track coaches coaching, little league baseball managers coaching ?
Were your colleagues officiating with real rules or were they officiating to keep the tourney moving ?

Were you standing on an island by yourself ? No woman is an island.

Yeah. Don't coach players or try to teach them lessons. Leave that up to their coaches. That's their job- right or wrong. Just do <b>your</b> job. Call the fouls uniformly and consistently. If that doesn't teach the kid a lesson, then nothing is gonna help him. If the coach(or player) asks, just say he is illegally displacing his opponent. 'Nuff said. That's all the detail that's needed.

It's not your job to teach lessons. Keep blowing the whistle. If they don't adjust they don't adjust. You are not required to explan your calls, period. And it seems to me you were attempting to answer a question when a question was not asked. No way no how I would have spent 2 games explaining my calls to any coach. You gave this coach far too much freedom.

Yea, I know it's not my job to teach lessons, but at these lower levels (kids who would be playing freshman ball next year), I guess I just feel like it IS my job to let folks know how good ball should be called. The other coaches WERE adjusting, and helping their kids, and this coach was so far out of line I kinda felt sorry for his players. I don't mean he was out of line in terms of his behavior or his words or actions, he didn't do much yelling or whining, but he was so wrong about the rules and what he was teaching his kids was so far off base.

I had a different partner for each of the games, and all three of us were very consistent, and were really trying to pay close attention to the post, so that it wouldn't get out of control. We'd call it and the kid would quit, and then he'd go into a time out, and when he came back onto the court, he'd be shoving again. It was obvious, the coach was telling him to keep pushing. I even saw once when his direct opponent was demonstrating to him about displacement.

I suppose we did all we could. I'm just trying to work on optimizing my talking and I'm wishing I could learn a little something from this experience (besides not to do any more tournaments where the players can't foul out.)

:D

FWIW, I agree with Jurrassic and Dan_Ref. Don't teach, don't coach. And don't try to save a stupid coach from himself at this level. Hopefully, in the Fall, the kid will have a coach who knows a little more about what he or she is doing.

"Straight up!" "No push!" "Get the arm off!" "Get the leg out!" That's about all I use and it tends to work. Even if they don't really know how to play defense, they can respond to simple commands like those.

It's also not your job to keep explaining the same thing over and over again.

And you let people know how good ball should be called by calling good ball. End of story.

Your calls themselves do all the speaking that needs to be done. Trying to coach the kids <b>and</b> also coach their coach isn't part of your mandate as an official.

JMHO.

What about Rosie O'Donnell? :eek:

I think she is a continent. :D

MTD, Sr.

You gave your explaination, but the coach doesn't want to hear it. No need for you to waste your breath and give it again. If he persists, either ignore him or give him the T.

We've all been in the same boat. What you really want is make the game go well. You want to call fouls and have the players adjust and make your game go well. And if calling fouls doesn't do it, then you want to talk to the players and coach and get them to come around so that your game will go well. But sometimes the player and/or coach are just not going to do it and you've got no choice but to keep blowing the whistle and the game won't go well. I hate those games.

You absolutely should be able to eject a coach for that. In fact, here's my rule change proposal for next year to address that very point, You Listening ChuckElias? Every official should be granted three general purpose ejections to be used at his/her discression during the season. They would be absolute and unquestionable. If somebody just needs gotten rid of, and you don't have a legitimate reason to do it, then use one of your three. If a player or coach is tossed three or more times during the season, he would be fined or suspended. That would go a long way toward idiot-proofing the game! :D

As already stated, I completely disagree with that philosophy.

Of the players don't adjust, oh well......

If the game doesn't go well, that's <b>their</b> fault, not the officials.

We already have that - unlimited ability to assess flagrant technical fouls.

Not really. If you issue a flagrant T and toss a coach, you have to make phone calls, write reports, and generally justify your action. The coach will certainly be doing the same, and sending tape to the state office as well. It's a hassle. And many coaches know how to game the system, how to be a thorn in your side without getting so close to the line that you can justify tossing them.

No, what I'm proposing, tounge-in-cheek, is the moral equivalent of the "he needed killing" defense. If the coach is getting under your skin, you toss him. On your report all you need write is: One of my three freebies. :cool:

I totally agree. Although I think most of us have at least one game like this during the latter part our formative years. I know I did. It was late in the fourth quarter, the home team was getting killed, we'd already fouled out four of their starters, and I'm still having to call a lot of fouls. I even called a T with about 1:30 remaining. I hated that game, hated how it didn't flow, hated how it ended, and spent days racking my brains trying to figure out what more I could have done.

But it's all part of the learning process and now I know what you know: some games are just like that and all you can do is call the fouls.

I still hate those games.

I see, you want a job where you get to teach the young players how to play the game. hmmmm....what could that be...?

:rolleyes:

Here's the problem with your attitude: You mother a coach for 2 entire games, holding his hand, nurturing him, hugging him, trying to get him to see it your way....then he runs into someone who nails his @ss to the wall just as he's expecting the same high maintenance up close and personal treatment.

Is that fair to the coach? I don't think so.

So next time you want to play nurse-maid to a whining PITA coach let him know up front that you just happen to be a softy and most other officials wouldn't put up with his crap for more than 2 seconds.

This way I won't have to hear him whining across the court that all he wanted was an explanation as I'm walking to the other end to administer the 2 FTs to his opponent.

(You aint the only one btw...entirely too much explaining going on by lots of people.)

Those type of games are what formulated the Mick school of philosophy called "Get in, get done, get out." :)

And most of the time you're explaining it to someone who's only reason for asking in the first place is to try and get you to start calling the plays the way that they want it called. They're just trying to influence your calls to gain an advantage.

Silly monkeys.

Well, as usual, you're over-stating your case, but I get your point. I didn't say I wanted to talk more. I just have been working on talking and not-talking, and I"m trying to keep working on it. I get what you're saying about not talking so much, but it's just not my style, and hasn't worked well for me in the past. I was asking if there was anything more or different I might have said, but their probably wasn't. Now, will you just stfu, if I do too?

I'm overstating? You wrote this, I didn't.

Not one game, but two games of explaining?

And you want advice on what more you could have said?

Here's advice: call your game and don't apologize for it. One of the best officials I ever knew was fond of saying "This aint a debate coach, it's a basketball game".

Try it.

Gotcha.

I could see a point for that. Of course, most of my ejections have come in intramural ball - the supervisors have to write up the reports for those. :cool:

I think she's a hemisphere.

I explained twice in the first game, once in the second. I didn't ask what more, but IF there was something more OR DIFFERENT.

Yea, you're overstating. The whole PITA whining thing in your last post was quite over stated.

I did call my game, and I didn't apologize. Now, I'm calling my post and I'm not apologizing. But it's not working. See? I need to work on how to talk, not how much or how little. That's what I"m trying to work on. HOW to talk.

Obviously, my stfu didn't work, but sometimes it can, right? SO HOW DO I TALK? Get it??

Chicken soup?
 

Summer tournaments with rules adaptations suck. The only rule that applies is, "You can't make chicken soup out of chicken sh!t."

Go back to your very first post in this thread. Your initial response to a coach's question was "Coach, he was pushing and clearing out." After you say that, STFU. You answered his question. You also told the player what he did wrong with the same response. Anything after that is a debate. Don't do debates.

Get it now?

Don't. <b> </b>

My, My, My rainmaker...how far we have progressed.

Atta girl. :D

Or is that DIGRESSED.

I don't see what more you could have done to get the point across. Displacement, pushing, shoving, hands in the back, knee in the leg, elbow in the side...what didn't this coach/player understand? I might suggest he read the rulebook closely after the game.

I strongly disagree with the "no talking" philosophy espoused by some here. I have always found you can manage games better with a few carefully said words versus a stony silence. We need to understand that many coaches do not have a good grasp on the rules. Telling a player the correct rule only makes the game better for him/her and the next game official they have. I like hearing well timed, concise descriptions for players and coaches to explain common violations and fouls from an official...it tells me they give a sh*t, versus the cloistered monk school of silence officiating...this does not help the game.

Dan and I, and Jurassic and I, and others and I have discussed this before, and I don't think they're advocating for a no-talk philosophy. They're saying (to me) don't talk too much. I do have that tendency, and then when I try to correct it, I swing too far the other way and don't talk at all. I'm working on finding the right balance, and that was the aim of my question in the OP. They were saying that I haven't found it yet!

I haven't seen one person here espouse a "no talking" officiating philosophy. Not in this thread nor in anywhere else in this forum.
Thus, the second paragraph of your posts is a classic strawman. They burn easily, but generally put out more heat than light.

Exactly.......

And that's a <b>general</b> rule of thumb also, not an all-encompassing one.

Except for you. You need to just shut up.

Stick a pink basketball in his mouth. He'll be quiet.

Yeahbut then he won't sink to the bottom.

Oh, yea...good point.

How about a dead rat instead?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-lawsuit_N.htm

Pictures of the elusive, legendary Jurassic Referee:

http://www.boingboing.net/images/Picture%201-12.jpg

http://www.jwz.org/images/catfish2b.jpg

Does it have to be dead?

But he turned me into a newt!

and calling an argument a "strawman" when it isn't is a classic logical fallacy:

from rainmaker:
"SO HOW DO I TALK?"

reply from dan ref
"don't"

did I read his "don't" wrong?

I'm not sure "wrong" is how you read it, but maybe out of context. Dan meant, "Don't keep talking after the initial explanation". But I knew what he meant from other discussions he and I have had, which you may not have been privy to. Also, Dan has been known in the past to overstate his case. Once in a while.

You took a very specific comment he made to a specific person with whom he has a long and mutually argumentative history and extrapolated it to some mythical officiating philosophy. Whether it was intentional or not, your argument is a strawman. Specifically, it's a strawman based on a false dichotomy.

Short answer to your final question. Yes.
Long answer to your final question. Yes, because you read too much into it. You need more to go on before determining and judging someone's officiating philosophy.