I must have put fiasco on my ignore list a long time ago and forgotten about it. I guess I'll never hear the full story behind his first erection.

Rather than getting the coaches together, would you consider briefly getting the captains together?

Bob, it isn't inconsistent at all. In this thread I'm saying there is a situation where getting coaches (plural) together can help. Notice I'm not giving any specific situations when I would do this because there are too many variables.
In MTD's thread I said it isn't a good idea to stick around after giving a coach a T. In high school we say give a coach a T and get away. In college we say give a coach a T and get away. I have always been a firm believer in giving a coach two Ts if it is personal and he/she leaves you no choice. However, under normal circumstances I will not be the one to stick around and tell a coach he must remain seated for the duration of the game. I will leave that to one of my partners. Now where in that situation does the other coach come into play?

Are there any circumstances where you would bring the coaches together?

Do you normally give a coach a T, stay in place and tell the coach he must remain seated for the rest of the game or does one of your partners do this?

In this case, I would appreciate it if you would answer those questions without being vague and/or non-committal?

I guess, by and large, no officials talk to coaches unless it's necessary.
But never? That's a very long time.
And necessary? What is and what ain't necessary may just vary a might depending on the user.

I think the "never" applies to "initiating" the conversation; not simply talking to a coach.

I think that, too.
I have initiated quite a few conversations which probably were not necessary. I did it to eliminate future technical fouls, mostly.

Had a game earlier in year where my partner and I called called both team players together during a free throw admin, telling them that "we/re not a playing a rugby match here, this is basketball". And if it didn't stop, intentional and T's would be called". It worked, had a smooth game afterwards. Coaches didn't say a word either!! Point here is that we avoided confronting the coaches first, had our little pep talk not worked, then we go to coaches. This is a good example in controlling play before it gets out of hand.

Works For Me ...
 

We did the same thing yesterday. Boys prep school varsity. A1 fouls B1, causing both to fall to the floor. A1 throws ball at B1. B1 is held back by a teammate. Common foul and technical foul on A1, tough call, but we decided not flagrant. After the technical fouls shots, ball is put back into play. My partner and I note that the players are getting a little rough, so we pretty much did what rngrck did. It worked. No more problems for the rest of the game.

There is a common theme here, folks. You do whatever you need to to do to prevent situations, either physical or verbal, from escalating beyond where your line is. People's lines and techniques can differ. Whatever works, do it. You can T people, call personal fouls on minimal contact, warn them, counsel them...options are endless. In the original posting, sounds like nothing got de-escalated to me, and that's too bad. Hopefully he'll try a different approach next time.

Sorry this just doesn't wash. 1) Refs are not responsible for whether kids stay in control or not. We do try to prevent problems as much as we can, and we must certainly never do things that might inflame a situation, but the responsibility for actual control lies with the players and the coaches. 2) We cannot just do whatever we want to try to "get control". We can't eject people who haven't actually broken rules. We can't call fouls if they weren't committed. We can't make players sit down, just to calm them down, or send a message. 3) Refs must first of all observe everything that happens, secondly enforce the rules as written, and thirdly manage the game withing the limits of our authority.

I agree that the OP needs to learn some different game management tools, but de-escalating was never his responsibility. His ONLY job is to enforce the rules, and to be sure he's not contributing to any escalation that happens.

Or his last one.....

Snuck one in, didn't ya?

A j, an r, what's the difference. We're all friends here.

What tools would you suggest, then?

The first half was called rather tightly. We were calling jump balls incredibly quickly beginning early on because things were getting physical.

Both my partner and I, on seperate occasions in the second quarter, talked with members of each team about the chippy play.

Then, the intentional foul was called. I figured that would wake everyone up.

The technical foul before the conference was the last straw for me, which is why I called coaches together.

Tightening up the foul calls did no good. Talking to the players did no good. Calling an intentional foul did no good.

I'd love to hear your suggestion, rainmaker, on what I should have done differently.

Yes. No.

I hope that helps, but since the questions are of a differetn form ("any" v. "normally"), I'm not sure it does.

To be clear, there are "ANY" circumstnaces where I'd brign the coaches together and where I'd talk to the coach after a T. "NORMALLY" I would do neither.

Mr. Jenkins, your reputation for not clearly taking a stand has once again been proven!
Bringing coaches together to discuss...whatever is totally different than talking to a coach immediately following a T. I don't know what your point was in saying I'm not consistent concerning the two. I think at this point it should be clear that you can be very wishy washy. Sort of like a...I don't want to say that because I know Juulie is a woman who can take a stand one way or another.

You may not want to say so, but if you have a good deal of experience you should know that bringing coaches together is useful in some situations and telling a coach he must be seated right after the same official just gave him/her a T is not the norm. I really didn't expect you to man-up and say it, but it was worth a shot.