NFHS Mechanics Question (3)

[IREFU2]

Not that I can think of right now. The last coach that had a question that was located in the back court, actually came into front court complaining and I stopped the game and walked him back to his box in the BC.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Not that I can think of right now. The last coach that had a question that was located in the back court, actually came into front court complaining and I stopped the game and walked him back to his box in the BC.

So you should have T'd him up.

I just find it hard to believe that in the 2nd half of all your games that the defensive coach has never had a question after his team has been whistled for a foul. If that's the case then being able to communicate to coaches in the trail shouldn't be that important.

[Nevadaref]

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

So remind me again why the NFHS went to the new 2-man mechanic of putting the trail tableside?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

Maybe their thoughts aren't important, but the mere fact that we took a moment to communicate what happened is NOT a bad thing.
Could be the difference in putting out a small fire or pouring gasoline on the fire.

I think what seperates the best of the best from the rest is great communication skills.

That being said, if you're talking to a coach/player on the first FT we shouldn't still be talking or holding up the game for the second FT.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

You're kidding, right?

While a coach isn't going to get a call changed, I sureashell know part of the gig is listening and talking and going tableside was put in place to facilitate that communication.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You're kidding, right?

While a coach isn't going to get a call changed, I sureashell know part of the gig is listening and talking and going tableside was put in place to facilitate that communication.

Then what's the point of coddling him? The coach should STFU towards the official and focus on instructing his team. Afterall, he's not the official's coach, now is he?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then what's the point of coddling him? The coach should STFU towards the official and focus on instructing his team. Afterall, he's not the official's coach, now is he?

I don't coddle anyone. But making it so the guy doesn't try to yell across the floor is a good thing, IMO.

[Raymond]

Some folks are incapable of having a conversation in here without calling names and getting personal, so I can understand why they avoid any type of contact with coaches. It's beyond their grasp of reality that many officials can communicate with coaches, even volatile coaches, without it ending with a technical foul or turning into a 5 minute dialog.

[IREFU2]

Like I said, to the best of my knowlegde, nothing that I can remember sticks out. As far as the "t", he was loosing and fustrated. IMO, a T was not warranted in that situation and my partners thanked me for not giving him a T. Now, in my earlier days, I would have stuck em.....