Angry Coach at Halftime

[Daryl H. Long]

To all who advocate a T:

Seeing and Hearing is tantamount. You must be 100% of what infraction has happened and Who committed the infraction.

IF you penalize the foul must be assessed to a specific individual. That means I must have both seen AND heard the infraction. Seeing tells me exactly who must be penalized. Hearing only tells me which rule infraction to penalize (10-4-1) as in this case during halftime everyone is bench personnel (4-34-2).

No seeing = guessing. The best officials DO NOT GUESS.

Note: in all citations so far to advocate T while in locker room areas of the school the referee has both seen and heard the infraction (ie. electronic equipment, T in hallway)

Only guessers assess a T without visually seeing who committed the infraction.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

To all who advocate a T:

Seeing and Hearing is tantamount. You must be 100% of what infraction has happened and Who committed the infraction.

IF you penalize the foul must be assessed to a specific individual. That means I must have both seen AND heard the infraction. Seeing tells me exactly who must be penalized. Hearing only tells me which rule infraction to penalize (10-4-1) as in this case during halftime everyone is bench personnel (4-34-2).

No seeing = guessing. The best officials DO NOT GUESS.

Note: in all citations so far to advocate T while in locker room areas of the school the referee has both seen and heard the infraction (ie. electronic equipment, T in hallway)

Only guessers assess a T without visually seeing who committed the infraction.

This is the only argument I can appreciate for definitively not calling the T. However, we all know there are some coaches with distinctive enough voices that make hearing just as good as seeing.

Preacher, have you ever called a T on a coach for a comment he made to you while he was standing directly behind you?

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This is the only argument I can appreciate for definitively not calling the T. However, we all know there are some coaches with distinctive enough voices that make hearing just as good as seeing.

Preacher, have you ever called a T on a coach for a comment he made to you while he was standing directly behind you?

Snaq

I appreciate you get my point.

Fortunately, in 27 years I have not had this happen. The difference is on the court we do have visual contact and are visible to everyone in the gym. And secondly the Voice right behind me is more recognizable or identifiable than the sound of a vioce coming through 12 inch concrete walls or even a closed door.

Side note: When I learned to become a pilot I had my peripheral vision evaluated. The doctor was amazed that it exteded so far behind me. He said it was almost like having eyes in the back of my head.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Seeing and Hearing is tantamount. You must be 100% of what infraction has happened and Who committed the infraction.

IF you penalize the foul must be assessed to a specific individual. That means I must have both seen AND heard the infraction. Seeing tells me exactly who must be penalized. Hearing only tells me which rule infraction to penalize (10-4-1) as in this case during halftime everyone is bench personnel (4-34-2).

No seeing = guessing. The best officials DO NOT GUESS.


Only guessers assess a T without visually seeing who committed the infraction.

If there is uncertainty, you have a point which is certainly valid. But in the OP, which I think would be the rule rather than the exception, identifying the guilty party does not seem to be a problem.

[LeeBallanfant]

If this issue is so important to a referee, why not just knock on the door and ask the coach "Are those remarks, (and the official would repeat them), addressed at us?"

If he says yes, then toss him. If he says no, then report to Assignor and/or AD what happened and that something should be done about the approximity of the dressing room.