Chastised for double T on Coach

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

I think he is a very experienced (and respected) umpire....I really do support him, if this is his philosophy....I just wish and hope he tells the coaches that they don't get "carte blanche" after one T....short of the F-Bomb...for the next several minutes...They need to know it's hands off....But he's in charge, and I will do all I can to muzzle myself...

Personally, I would simply say, "I understand." Then, after the call is over, forget everything he said.

[Nevadaref]

Better yet, post his email address on here and a few of us will send him our thoughts regarding his not supporting the officials for taking care of business.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Better yet, post his email address on here and a few of us will send him our thoughts regarding his not supporting the officials for taking care of business.

What you and Snaqwell said....Thanks!!! But I guess I will take the low road and pass...I appreciate the support!!!

[jearef]

Great points by all thus far. Here's my $.02.

I think (hope?) your state office is telling you that when a coach gets whacked, you should allow him the opportunity to vent a bit. He's now paid for his right to complain, so allow him to complain. Although we would all love to officiate in a world where the coach stops whining immediately upon getting whacked, that doesn't often happen. More often than not, he will get in a couple more shots that include words like "terrible", "horrible", etc. I'll usually let that go, as long as I perceive that he is winding down in the process.

That having been said, there is a very distinct difference between venting (permitted, within reason) and getting personal (never permitted). When the coach in your situation began with "you're the worst ref I've ever seen", he has leaped across the line. You stick him without hesitation.

If the guy at the state office is aware of the specifics, including the personal affront, and he still tells you that you should have passed, then he is wrong. Simple as that.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by jearef

Great points by all thus far. Here's my $.02.

I think (hope?) your state office is telling you that when a coach gets whacked, you should allow him the opportunity to vent a bit. He's now paid for his right to complain, so allow him to complain. Although we would all love to officiate in a world where the coach stops whining immediately upon getting whacked, that doesn't often happen. More often than not, he will get in a couple more shots that include words like "terrible", "horrible", etc. I'll usually let that go, as long as I perceive that he is winding down in the process.

That having been said, there is a very distinct difference between venting (permitted, within reason) and getting personal (never permitted). When the coach in your situation began with "you're the worst ref I've ever seen", he has leaped across the line. You stick him without hesitation.

If the guy at the state office is aware of the specifics, including the personal affront, and he still tells you that you should have passed, then he is wrong. Simple as that.

Disagree - he got whacked for what he already said and getting a T does not IMHO give him lisence to continue running at the mouth inappropriately. What you are saying is like calling a travel on A1 in the first quarter but since he's paid for traveling - don't call it on him again unless it's personal and he runs you over.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jearef

He's now paid for his right to complain, so allow him to complain.

This premise is flawed.

He has now paid for his previous complaining. There is no BOGO provision in the rule book.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This premise is flawed.

He has now paid for his previous complaining. There is no BOGO provision in the rule book.

Does it have a GIGO provision?