admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dsturdy5

He screamed at me, "that's a double dribble! How could you miss that? He can't do that!"

Next dead ball, a timeout was called, I reported it and went over to B's coach as the throw-in was near his bench. I turned to him and in a voice only he and I could hear, I admitted I blew it. He replied with, "I don't care. That was a HUGE call in a game like this." I turned and began the throw-in procedure.

For the next trip or two, while his team was trailing, he would say "that was a huge no call" as I ran past his bench. Next chance I got I told him (in the same calm, quiet voice) the play was a long time ago in the scheme of the game, it is a close game, his team is playing great, and he should focus on winning this game with his players rather than something he cannot control. If he did not, he would not be on the sideline to see the end result. That seemed to calm him down. Of course, team A's coach now thought every call that went against his team was a "make up call" but my partner felt his wrath and ended up dealing with him.

1. That was not a good time to admit a mistake, as you discovered.

2. You were right to tell the coach to stop. Maybe even late.

3. You said that he "should focus on winning this game" -- I try never to tell coaches what they should do. After all, I don't want them to tell me what to do.

4. You threatened the coach ("If he did not, he would not be on the sideline..."). Threatening paints you into a corner and makes you seem to be a bully. You told him to stop, and he knows the consequences of continuing. That's sufficient.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This indicates that you think the preliminary (block/charge) signal is the key to the whole blarge mess. So if you go up with a fist and no prelim, but your partner immediately signals pc, does this mean you have the option of blarge or pc. If both of you go up with just a fist, with no prelim, but had intentions of making opposite calls, are you obligated to go with a double foul? If not, then why not?

No, you're not obligated to go with a double foul, because until you signal the requirements of the case play don't kick in.

At my clinic in June, the clinician gave this advice for blarges. Some crews hold their prelim on a double whistle and then let the official whose primary it is make the call. This guy suggested that it's often better to sell a call on a blarge, and if you're waiting you're not selling.

So his recommended mechanic was: let L sell the call. As T or C, get in the habit of doing 2 things: (1) hold your signal on a double whistle, and (2) when your partner sells his call, nod vigorously, as if that's what you had too.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by dsturdy5

If he did not, he would not be on the sideline to see the end result.

Is this normal for most officials on this board? I have had a reputation in the past for giving Ts freely , but I don't say things like this to coaches. I think it is somewhat threatening and it backs the official in the corner. If the coach doesn't stop, the official must either do something or lose credibility. "That is enough coach" with two hands held low (2009 version of the stop sign ) is enough for me. Especially in a two-man game where I don't have time to go back and forth with a coach.

Mbyron, we are thinking alike.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So his recommended mechanic was: let L sell the call. As T or C, get in the habit of doing 2 things: (1) hold your signal on a double whistle, and (2) when your partner sells his call, nod vigorously, as if that's what you had too.

We were thinking alike on this one except for the nodding part. Are you serious about nodding vigorously? I'm simply not going to do this; it seems silly to me and could come off planned/fake.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tomegun

We were thinking alike on this one except for the nodding part. Are you serious about nodding vigorously? I'm simply not going to do this; it seems silly to me and could come off planned/fake.

Doesn't have to be vigorous. The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling. I'm sure the nodding is optional.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling.

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

[dsturdy5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. That was not a good time to admit a mistake, as you discovered.

2. You were right to tell the coach to stop. Maybe even late.

3. You said that he "should focus on winning this game" -- I try never to tell coaches what they should do. After all, I don't want them to tell me what to do.

4. You threatened the coach ("If he did not, he would not be on the sideline..."). Threatening paints you into a corner and makes you seem to be a bully. You told him to stop, and he knows the consequences of continuing. That's sufficient.

Thanks for the feedback. I will file this away (as I do so much I read on this site).

I understand what you mean by "threatening" and putting myself into a tougher position. I have not given a ton of T's in my high school officiating career. Nor have I felt I have needed to upon reflection so I don't have a reputation or anything (that I'm aware of )

I think I was caught up in the fact that I knew I screwed up so obviously in front of a packed gym and continually heard it from the coach. Sort of a heat of the moment type of thing I guess.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by dsturdy5

I have not given a ton of T's in my high school officiating career.

Have you been out sick, or what?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Doesn't have to be vigorous. The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling. I'm sure the nodding is optional.

OK, so now that you've said (typed) what someone told you, do you agree with the nodding part? Do you do it or plan on doing it?

I still think it is corny.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

OK, so now that you've said (typed) what someone told you, do you agree with the nodding part? Do you do it or plan on doing it?

I still think it is corny.

I can only speak for myself on what works for me. I will not nod just for the purpose to make everyone know I agree with the call of my partner, but I will nod when talking to a coach to get them to understand what I am saying to them. But that is a little different than doing so after a call you are not participating in. I do nod if my partner and I have a double whistle and I only do it to acknowledge that we have the same thing or that someone has the call. Usually this is followed by some verbal exchange or comment about who is going to the table.

Peace

[walter]

Originally Posted by just another ref

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

At the four camps I attended this play was discussed quite a bit. All the clinicians, however, agreed on one common principal, if two different preliminaries are given on a block/charge situation, it is a double foul and both players are penalized. They all stressed that is why the T and C should do everything they can to refrain from giving a preliminary signal when there is a double whistle on these situations. They all agreed the prelim, if given, should come from the lead.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

Originally Posted by walter

At the four camps I attended this play was discussed quite a bit. All the clinicians, however, agreed on one common principal, if two different preliminaries are given on a block/charge situation, it is a double foul and both players are penalized. They all stressed that is why the T and C should do everything they can to refrain from giving a preliminary signal when there is a double whistle on these situations. They all agreed the prelim, if given, should come from the lead.

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

The purpose they serve has to do with not only the tradition of the game, but some fouls could be on either the offense or defense and I doubt that it would be acceptable to not make a block/charge call by only reporting this to the table. But in all other situations I have no problem with the elimination or a modification of using preliminary signals in many cases. Not all, but many.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see that the case play is binding at all. I see it as one possible outcome on a double whistle.

Well then.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

They tell the rest of the crew what is coming next. They communicate the call to the teams....so they can make substitutions if necessary since they may not have time if they wait until it is reported it. It doesn't keep everyone in suspense on tough plays giving some the chance to think that the pleading of the coaches/players caused you to change your call on the way to the table.