Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by sing19702000

What are some of the best ways to establish confidence, cooperation and respect from coaches and players.

You can demand cooperation, but respect has to be earned. A recipe that has worked for me:

1) Be competent. Know the rules. Know the mechanics. Prepare.
2) Be confident. This is only possible if you master #1
3) Be concise. Avoid unneccessary conversation, editorializing before or after the game with fellow officials, AD's, coaches, or players
4) Be decisive. Crisp whistle. Crisp mechanics. Crisp voice when reporting.

[bbcoach7]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

You can demand cooperation, but respect has to be earned. A recipe that has worked for me:

1) Be competent. Know the rules. Know the mechanics. Prepare.
2) Be confident. This is only possible if you master #1
3) Be concise. Avoid unneccessary conversation, editorializing before or after the game with fellow officials, AD's, coaches, or players
4) Be decisive. Crisp whistle. Crisp mechanics. Crisp voice when reporting.

Just kidding, merely my perspective. Just in case anyone gives a hoot what a HS coach feels works for him (probably not, but what the heck, I'm a registered user).

I like quick whistles followed by clear and desicive mechanics. Slow (late) whistles sometimes imply to me that the Ref was waiting to see how the action played out (if the shot goes in, maybe he ignores the push). Might not be the case, but it looks that way to me, the players, and to the folks in the stands.

I like a brief (if possible) answer to a legitimate relevant game question. I know the only response I'm entitled to a statement I make is to be ignored, or to get whacked. Just like anybody, I do not like to be talked down to, insulted, or disrespected when I have previously and up to that point established that I am behaving in a respectful manner. If I'm treated in this manner without cause (rarely), I will never respect that Ref.

It really bothers me when a Ref lags behind (lead or trail). If he's outa shape and can't keep up with the pace of the game, it's difficult for me to have respect and avoid saying something. I would never say something loud enough for fans to hear, or to otherwise embarass, but I have said something face to face like, "Sir, I'd really appreciate if you'd get to the same half of the court the ball is on." I realize that could get me seat belted, but I'd take it. In the maybe 2 times I've actually said that, they actually hustled better afterwards. You gotta understand, we are rural, we play some games on an Indian Reservation where once in Jr High, one of the Refs had a pepsi in his hand 1/2 the game and leaned against the wall behind the basket instead of standing behind the end line.

Sometimes Refs will pause, or even take a player aside and speak directly to them. I generally do not like it when Refs talk to my players about the way they play basketball. Every time that happens, I ask the player what the talk was about, and to their credit (the Refs), It's been my experience that I've appreciated the feed back or comment given to my player. So I think this is a sort of predjudice on my part that is unfounded.

Last observation: ANY advice in here about dealing with coaches that begins with phrases such as, "Most coaches..." should be lightly regarded at best. We are all individuals, just like you guys. We are nomore all the same than any group of humans is all the same in desiring basic respect.

[Adam]

Coach, regarding your comment on delayed whistles. Sometimes the result of the play is the only way to determine if the contact should be ruled a foul. Personally, I don't care if the shot goes in.
I do care about the following:
1. Was the shot made significantly more difficult?
2. Was the player knocked out of bounds? Sometimes this takes a moment to materialize.
3. Was the player able to play through the illegal contact?
4. Was the player knocked off balance and forced to travel? Again, this sometimes takes a moment to materialize.
5. Was the player able to make the play he/she intended to make. Example, a bump around the midcourt line as the player throws a pass to a wide-open teammate streaking for a layup.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Snaq - so, I guess you never have any 3-point plays in your games? Because, according to your logic, if a guy gets whacked during his lay-up try and continues on to make the lay-up, you have no foul.

Coach, please see my original post on the topic. I've inserted it and added emphasis to the salient point.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Coach, regarding your comment on delayed whistles. Sometimes the result of the play is the only way to determine if the contact should be ruled a foul. Personally, I don't care if the shot goes in.I do care about the following:
1. Was the shot made significantly more difficult?
2. Was the player knocked out of bounds? Sometimes this takes a moment to materialize.
3. Was the player able to play through the illegal contact?
4. Was the player knocked off balance and forced to travel? Again, this sometimes takes a moment to materialize.
5. Was the player able to make the play he/she intended to make. Example, a bump around the midcourt line as the player throws a pass to a wide-open teammate streaking for a layup.

I know some guys who do judge a foul by whether the shot goes in; I don't. I have always been clear on that in this board, and in fact stated so explicitly in this thread. If the contact didn't significantly affect the shot, I'm not calling a foul even if he misses it. If it made the shot more difficult, then I'll likely call the foul even if it goes in.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bbcoach7

I like quick whistles followed by clear and desicive mechanics. Slow (late) whistles sometimes imply to me that the Ref was waiting to see how the action played out (if the shot goes in, maybe he ignores the push). Might not be the case, but it looks that way to me, the players, and to the folks in the stands.

This is why we do not listen to "most coaches."

For the record a slow whistle is now promoted or taught too many levels of officiating. The quicker whistle often does not allow the play to complete or shows less confidence that what you saw will take place a second or two later. And as an official you really do not care what coaches, players and fans ultimately think about this part of the game. That is something they have to deal with or get over.

Originally Posted by bbcoach7

Last observation: ANY advice in here about dealing with coaches that begins with phrases such as, "Most coaches..." should be lightly regarded at best. We are all individuals, just like you guys. We are nomore all the same than any group of humans is all the same in desiring basic respect.

Well I will disagree for this obvious reason. There are reasons officials should not really care in the end what a coach thinks about them, because most coaches have an agenda or a bias towards what we do. They are not looking at the game strictly from the rules or training; they are looking at the game through what took place to their team. If this was not the case, then you would hear coaches complain about calls we make in favor of their team. So yes there are a lot of things that apply to most coaches. Yes you are individuals, but your role is still the same as it relates to your team and your role in the game. And that does not change because you are an individual.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

I'm pretty sure Jeff has a typo below that substantially changes the meaning of what I'm thinking he meant to say...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For the record a slow whistle is not NOW promoted or taught too many levels of officiating. The quicker whistle often does not allow the play to complete or shows less confidence that what you saw will take place a second or two later. And as an official you really do not care what coaches, players and fans ultimately think about this part of the game. That is something they have to deal with or get over.

Assuming that is the case....some coaches just don't get it. A bump at the FT line on a drive where a foul call would result in the team getting the ball OOB is not as valuable as the player being allowed to continue for an undefended shot if they are able to get by that last defender in position to do anything (the one who just fouled them).

EDIT: Or for that matter, a layup is even more valuable than a 1-and-1 or 2 FT shots when the possible foul occurs before the act of shooting begins.

I had a coach just about blow up on me a couple seasons ago when his guard, from near the top of the key and about 15' off the sideline, drew a defender who promptly whacked the guard across the arm as the guard was releasing a pass to a teammate. The coach got suddenly quiet when I directed his attention toward his 3-point sharpshooter in the corner who was about to release a shot with no defener anywhere near.....swish...and a smile from the coach. A foul call is not always necessary or the best result. If the pass had not made it to the intended recipient, a foul would have been the right call...but calling it as it played out would have disadvantaged the fouled team.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm pretty sure Jeff has a typo below that substantially changes the meaning of what I'm thinking he meant to say...

Yes it was a typo. I just changed it.

Peace

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

some coaches just don't get it. A bump at the FT line on a drive where a foul call would result in the team getting the ball OOB is not as valuable as the player being allowed to continue for an undefended shot if they are able to get by that last defender in position to do anything (the one who just fouled them).

EDIT: Or for that matter, a layup is even more valuable than a 1-and-1 or 2 FT shots when the possible foul occurs before the act of shooting begins.

Sounds like you call a great game Cameron! Too many times we as officials pop it while the play is still developing. If we learn to be patient, we don't have so many GIs in our game.

Mere contact does not constitute a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Sounds like you call a great game Cameron! Too many times we as officials pop it while the play is still developing. If we learn to be patient, we don't have so many GIs in our game.

Mere contact does not constitute a foul.

If I could only make that good of a decision 100% of the time.

[gslefeb]

Cameron - I understand what you are saying about holding the call and seeing the whole play (regarding the 3pt shooter)...but some thoughts:

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out. Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs? What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

A no call - when there is a foul - may have an immediate advantage for the offense but in the long run it can be a disadvantage as basketball has penalties for accumulating fouls.

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Cameron - I understand what you are saying about holding the call and seeing the whole play (regarding the 3pt shooter)...but some thoughts:

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out. Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs? What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

A no call - when there is a foul - may have an immediate advantage for the offense but in the long run it can be a disadvantage as basketball has penalties for accumulating fouls.

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

The rule is that the offending contact must provide some sort of advantage in order to be a foul. So, if the play continues as the offense intended in spite of the contact, there is no foul to call.

I had a situation similar to Cameron's in a boys' sophomore game; except I called the foul 30 feet from the basket right after the guard released a pass to a streaking teammate heading for the basket. Coach yelled about me taking away a layup and wanting an intentional if I was going to make that call, and he was right about the layup (even if there's no way that was intentional).

[Coach Bill]

[QUOTE=Snaqwells;619359]The rule is that the offending contact must provide some sort of advantage in order to be a foul. So, if the play continues as the offense intended in spite of the contact, there is no foul to call.

Snaq - so, I guess you never have any 3-point plays in your games? Because, according to your logic, if a guy gets whacked during his lay-up try and continues on to make the lay-up, you have no foul.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

A no call - when there is a foul - may have an immediate advantage for the offense but in the long run it can be a disadvantage as basketball has penalties for accumulating fouls.

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

If I were a player/coach I'd prefer the the lay-up/ open jumper over FTs or taking the ball out just to start all over again.

Draw the line? That's the sweet art aspect of what we do!! Gotta have a feel for the game... what each player can/can't play through...

I'd rather be late & right, than too quick & wrong.

Funny how that pertains to more than officiating

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out. Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs? What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

It is not a foul until there is an advantage. Read the rules on Incidental Contact (Rule 4-27) which says clearly you must put a player at some level of disadvantage in order to have a foul. Now that is completely the judgment of the official making the call, but a 3 point shooter that decides not to shoot might not get a shooting foul. Maybe they get a common foul. But I have not seen a shooter that does not try to shoot so they get shots they intended.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

A no call - when there is a foul - may have an immediate advantage for the offense but in the long run it can be a disadvantage as basketball has penalties for accumulating fouls.

You cannot have a foul unless there is an advantage. So a no call might be the proper call because no advantage was gained by the contact. It is not about passing on an obvious foul. It is determining that the contact was not a foul which we do all the time.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

This is where your experience and ability comes into play. I think most officials either have it or they do not when it comes to judgment. The line is drawn by what you see. But I must clearly state that the rules do not consider all contact a foul and if that was not the case we would have many more fouls. This is why we get paid the big bucks; you have to make tough judgments some times. Not all contact is difficult to call, but the better the players the slower you need to have your whistle. It is really hard to say on this forum because we cannot easily show you what a foul is or is not based on our judgment.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out.

Perhaps, but not all that likely. How many games do you have where players foul out? And what are the odds of it being a player that was involved in the few plays of this nature.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs?

Quite possibly. But, how many of those times will the offended player still be able to make the desire play...if they don't...and they usually don't..call the foul.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

The coach should bench them. I've had more coaches, outside the scope of the game, say that they would rather have a high percentage shot than the a throwin. Whether you consider a 3-pointer a high percentage shot is another question...but undefended it comes pretty close for a "shooter".

Originally Posted by gslefeb

A no call - when there is a foul - may have an immediate advantage for the offense but in the long run it can be a disadvantage as basketball has penalties for accumulating fouls.

Technically, if there was no call, it was not a foul.

What you say is true, but we are generally to judge each play for its specific advantage/disadvantage.

A team should only be penalized when illegal contact individually creates a disadvantage. The accumulation of fouls that leads to a penalty should only matter when each of those fouls created a disadvantage on their own.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

When it doesn't materially detract from their opportunity to make the desired play or score.

(All of this ignores any aspect of cleaning up rough play independent of advantage/disadvantage).