Another T or No T situation

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I have an assignor that wants the officials to face each other during timeouts for this very reason.

How does that work during 3-person?

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How does that work during 3-person?

Its kind of a 2 against one thing

[Texas Aggie]

A staredown means nothing except for simple minded people who do it. Leave it alone. If he wants to waste his time and look like a fool, that's his problem. I penalize words and gestures when appropriate, not thoughts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

A staredown means nothing except for simple minded people who do it. Leave it alone. If he wants to waste his time and look like a fool, that's his problem. I penalize words and gestures when appropriate, not thoughts.

I agree with you on this, but a stare could definitely be considered a gesture.

[ronald]

"A staredown means nothing" (Texas Aggie)

Please explain what you mean by "nothing".

For me not a nanogram of sportsmanship. Simplest answer "Whack" (NevadaRef).

Knows nothing about College, Pros and what their values are. Feds values and code of ethics are quite clear. Coach not living up to them. Have a T and sit down for the rest of the game. Coach has to be accountable for his unsporting behaviour (that is the issue at the moment); officials have to deal with it at this moment.

If your association does not want T's for this behaviour, then shame on them. Otherwise, a T is warrated.

Ron

[Texas Aggie]

Please explain what you mean by "nothing".

What part of "nothing" is unclear?

For me not a nanogram of sportsmanship.

Do you also call a T when the coach alleges someone stepped out of bounds and they didn't? That's even worse sportsmanship.

The rule doesn't say, "when he's being a poor sport, give him a T."

My advice: don't go looking for T's. Don't run from the ones that are there, but unless you feel his actions are causing you to lose some control of the game (and staring isn't causing that), then it often isn't needed. Obviously, there are always exceptions.

[ronald]

We have a doer and a receiver.

I think the doer means something by his action. If in doing this action it is unsportsmanlike, an official is required to give him a T.

I think you mean nothing based on how the receiver reacts to the action or how you would respond. You have a philosophy about this. But is this the philosophy of the rules. If it is no T but if isn't then a T.

On a communicaton level (here it is non-verbal), the act of staring has some meaning. A meaning is imparted. Thus, how could it be nothing. I do not think the coach did what he did cause he wanted to send a "nothing" message. I do not believe in this situation we are in the proverbially "sticks and stones will break my bones, words can't hurt me" situation.

So it is unclear to me what nothing means to you. All I am asking is for you to explain, elucidate how you use the tern nothing in your sentence.

Is the staring unsportsmanlike or not. If it is, a T is needed. If not, not T.

It is that simple.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The rule doesn't say, "when he's being a poor sport, give him a T."
My advice: don't go looking for T's.

No body is going looking for the T, but this one is teetering on the brink, it is not a coach being a poor sport - He is trying to show you up

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

but unless you feel his actions are causing you to lose some control of the game (and staring isn't causing that),

- he is denegrating the quality of your game, and his actions are unsportsman like and if not dealt with somehow right now, it will lead to problems down the road.

Example, next time out, he stands there and does the same thing? What are you going to do about then? You set the example by not dealing with it immediately

- "Nip it in the bud!!"

One of the 2 or 3 of you needs do deal with the coach, either suggest that the course of action he has chosen is not the best and if continued there will be negative consequences, or let him have it, this needs to be done immediately not at the end of the time out.

[Texas Aggie]

stare is not appropriate for good communication

I agree with this, and you can always say, "coach, if you are going to act like that, we are done talking and any leeway you were getting is now gone."

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

"coach, if you are going to act like that, we are done talking and any leeway you were getting is now gone."

Suggested communication,
Help me out here coach I really do not want to see you get a T here, empathy, but if you continue to show up my partner, explaination of why what the coach is doing will result in cosequences, you'll leave us with no choice but to issue the technical, the consequences, So you go back to coaching your team, option to avoid negative consequences and the game continues without an incident.

The coach moves on or gets Whacked.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How does that work during 3-person?

It must look like the beginning of the "Brady Bunch".

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It must look like the beginning of the "Brady Bunch".

Must be why my U1 tonight was constantly muttering, "Marsh, Marsha, Marsha."

[tomegun]

I think Rocky's approach might be the best one. In my younger days, I would have T'd him up quick, but now I would probably tolerate a little more. If he was staring at me I might be the one to approach him during the timeout. If I was feeling playful, I might have moved to the other end of the court just to see if he would turn his body so his stare would follow me. I would love for something like this to happen at the beginning of a game. In that case, virtually all communication with that coach is over. Approachability is a two-way street and the stare is not appropriate for good communication. I looked that up.