It lasted until Game 9

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by zm1283

FWIW, the plays that she was screaming about happened right in front of me when I was Lead. He just happened to be in front of her as Trail when he whacked her.

Our association tells us that if you T a coach, you ALWAYS go administer the free throws and have your partner stand next to the coach. She was wanting to talk about it, and in order to get him away from her, I had to jump in the middle of it.

She knew what she got T'd for, she just wanted to complain about the plays which led up to it. I didn't have to "explain something for him".

Not to play Monday morning quarterback, but...

Could you have found a way to discuss her concerns, at least tell her what you saw and/or briefly explain your call, before she got to the screaming point? If so, might that have de-escalated her or even prevented her from getting "escalated" in the first place?

[BktBallRef]

There are times when it's better that a partner be the next official to talk to a coach.

There are times when no one should talk to the coach until the calling official talks to him.

There is no "One size fits all," for these types of things. Anyone that advocates such is wrong.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There are times when it's better that a partner be the next official to talk to a coach.

There are times when no one should talk to the coach until the calling official talks to him.

There is no "One size fits all," for these types of things. Anyone that advocates such is wrong.

Can you give an example of one of those times? I'm not being sarcastic or starting a "pissing match." You added something to the conversation and I want to know specifics so I can digest what you are saying. The statement I made above honestly didn't come from me, but in the situation I described there was no reason for my partner to have his A$$ back there talking to the coach.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Can you give an example of one of those times? I'm not being sarcastic or starting a "pissing match." You added something to the conversation and I want to know specifics so I can digest what you are saying. The statement I made above honestly didn't come from me, but in the situation I described there was no reason for my partner to have his A$$ back there talking to the coach.

I happen to generally agree with this comment. If I whack a coach for poor behavior, I don't want any other official over there being (or having the appearance of being) buddy-buddy with him. If this is a NFHS game, a partner is going to go to him and inform him he's lost the box privileges, if he asks what he's done when that takes place, a very quick, very specific answer should be it.

IMO, a coach who gets whacked for behavior has lost some communication privileges, at least until the calling official has re-opened the door. If my partner whacks a coach, I'm not communicating beyond the very bare minimum.

I find most coaches get back to coaching and quit officiating after that anyway.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I happen to generally agree with this comment. If I whack a coach for poor behavior, I don't want any other official over there being (or having the appearance of being) buddy-buddy with him. If this is a NFHS game, a partner is going to go to him and inform him he's lost the box privileges, if he asks what he's done when that takes place, a very quick, very specific answer should be it.

IMO, a coach who gets whacked for behavior has lost some communication privileges, at least until the calling official has re-opened the door. If my partner whacks a coach, I'm not communicating beyond the very bare minimum.

I find most coaches get back to coaching and quit officiating after that anyway.

Why have they lost some communication privileges?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Why have they lost some communication privileges?

Probably need a little clarification. I will talk with coaches quite a bit. A lot of stuff that some people would probably not. I want to have strong communication with them throughout the game. I will respond to things that some won't, and I go out of my way when I can to communicate with them, even if it's just to acknowledge that I hear them.

But if they abuse that and draw a T, we're not talking much after that. I'm not going out of my way after that, and I sure don't want my partners going out of their way to placate him. Legit questions at the correct time can get a response, but that's it.

It's simply a matter of tightening up. If I whacked a coach for chirping, my partners better not be running over to him because he's chirping again. He should get the message.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Probably need a little clarification. I will talk with coaches quite a bit. A lot of stuff that some people would probably not. I want to have strong communication with them throughout the game. I will respond to things that some won't, and I go out of my way when I can to communicate with them, even if it's just to acknowledge that I hear them.

But if they abuse that and draw a T, we're not talking much after that. I'm not going out of my way after that, and I sure don't want my partners going out of their way to placate him. Legit questions at the correct time can get a response, but that's it.

It's simply a matter of tightening up. If I whacked a coach for chirping, my partners better not be running over to him because he's chirping again. He should get the message.

Gotcha...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Why have they lost some communication privileges?

The way I see it, standing next to the coach to let her vent while the free throws are shot is rewarding her for getting the T. She now has your ear in a way she didn't before. IOW, her little temper tantrum worked.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The way I see it, standing next to the coach to let her vent while the free throws are shot is rewarding her for getting the T. She now has your ear in a way she didn't before. IOW, her little temper tantrum worked.

The Fed must have had something in mind when they decided that reporting official on shooting fouls stays table side. A T'd coach knows there is a fine line to what they can say and they don't want to pole vault over it.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Can you give an example of one of those times? I'm not being sarcastic or starting a "pissing match." You added something to the conversation and I want to know specifics so I can digest what you are saying. The statement I made above honestly didn't come from me, but in the situation I described there was no reason for my partner to have his A$$ back there talking to the coach.

I like to give T's with a ho hum attitude, no emotion, they are part of the game. I'm the adult, I will remain calm and in control. Should he/she continue and deserve another, I prefer one of my partners to show solidarity and whack him. To me, this demonstrates to all in attendence that we are a team, on the same page, and I'm not a hot head who lost his cool or has it in for a coach. I trust my partners.

To your point, I don't want my partners running over to him attending his slightest whim or appearing to be his buddy. I disagree with your reasoning however that in no way should your partners be over with coach. Should they be in his vicinity and coach wants to express himself without crossing line, I see nothing wrong. He just got a T, his choice if he wants to leave early. Partners may help to diffuse situation.


There was a survey done in Illinois a few years ago asking coaches their main gripes with officials and I believe the top beef was refs ignoring them.

Every camp or clinic I've been to either college or high school has pretty much stated the same thing regarding if you can, it's best to have a partner give that second T. As was said above, there is no set rule and every situation is different. When things get out of control, I want to be in control as well as my partners.

Don't know how they do things out your way, in Illinois, we have reports to file should things happen and it certainly looks better if two officials issued Ts

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Not to play Monday morning quarterback, but...

Could you have found a way to discuss her concerns, at least tell her what you saw and/or briefly explain your call, before she got to the screaming point? If so, might that have de-escalated her or even prevented her from getting "escalated" in the first place?

Not everyone can be "de-escalated." There's a local coach who I've already whacked this season. Why? Because he doesn't know how to talk to people. I've worked his games for the past 5 years and every year, I think, "Maybe he's grown up." So each time I see him, I once again make the mistake of trying to be approachable, he steps on his dick and I end up sticking him.

I'm made up my mind that I am no longer going to be approachable with him. I'll nod yes or no and that's it. I've even told my crew that if I talk to him, they have permission to head slap me.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Not everyone can be "de-escalated." There's a local coach who I've already whacked this season. Why? Because he doesn't know how to talk to people. I've worked his games for the past 5 years and every year, I think, "Maybe he's grown up." So each time I see him, I once again make the mistake of trying to be approachable, he steps on his dick and I end up sticking him.

I'm made up my mind that I am no longer going to be approachable with him. I'll nod yes or no and that's it. I've even told my crew that if I talk to him, they have permission to head slap me.

I realize that. The question was meant to be an honest inquiry, knowing full well the answer may be "we tried, it couldn't be done."

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Not to play Monday morning quarterback, but...

Could you have found a way to discuss her concerns, at least tell her what you saw and/or briefly explain your call, before she got to the screaming point? If so, might that have de-escalated her or even prevented her from getting "escalated" in the first place?

No, and I'll explain why.

This team was AWFUL. I'm talking couldn't get the ball across the division line awful. The play she screamed on was the first or second time they finally got it across half court, and my partner warned her after it happened the first time. (I was L and he was T and her bench was on the opposite end) This was the first quarter still, and it was the first time she had said anything to us because up to that point, the other team was stealing inbounds passes and shooting layups.

The next time they got the ball across the division line and in the paint after he warned her is when he T'd her. Her girls were getting their shots blocked cleanly and she was pissed because she was down by 20+ already in the first quarter, so she decided to scream again about "You've gotta call that!!". I actually did finally call a shooting foul but just before I blew my whistle, he blew his for the T on her.

Both times she screamed I was L and he was T. We didn't have a chance to talk to her because her hysterical screaming was the only thing she said. She was warned for it once and was T'd the next time.

I agree with whoever said they don't like their partner going to talk to the coach after they have T'd him/her. I think it makes it appear that he is buddying up to him/her and playing the "good cop", but in this instance I had to get in between them so we could move on with the game. He was going to let her stand there and eat on his a** for five minutes if she wanted to.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by zm1283

...but in this instance I had to get in between them so we could move on with the game. He was going to let her stand there and eat on his a** for five minutes if she wanted to.

There's a reason the fed gives the option (and many associations/camps/supervisors will more-or-less say mandatory) to go away from the table after a T.

I had a partner at an NCAA-W camp last summer (we were using fed rules and mechanics) get his *** chewed for choosing to stay. My other partner (I was L) went across to switch with him. He wanted to stay and "handle" the situation. His handling it ended up with him calling a second T.

First, the evaluator chewed P1's a$$ for staying. Called it ego. Based on how the first T went down, he needed no explanation and nothing good could come from P1's staying.

Then turned to P2 and said, "Good job of going to get him, but be stronger next time! Once you go over there you tell him in simple terms that you're there now."

Then turned to me and said, "You're smart enough to see that wasn't going to end well. You saw P1 was being an idiot, and P2 was weak. You don't have many options being at Lead, but I'd have had no problem if you would have gone and taken control of that situation. Just get P1 out of there."

It was fun.

My entire rambling point is, there's a huge difference between a partner buddying up a coach after a T, and getting the calling partner out of there before a tense situation escalates.

[tomegun]

I've heard many things in this thread, but nothing that will change what I do. I'm not saying this as an absolute, but I still don't see much reason for my partner to be near a coach after I give a T. Especially if we are in the second half and my partner has to go into the backcourt to be near the coach.

Every T on a coach I can remember has been obvious and there isn't anything that needs to be said afterward - the exception is a coach to said my partner was racist for not giving him a shooting foul (I T'd him up fast).

What Rut always says applies in this case: you do what works in your area. I know plenty officials who wouldn't like this though, myself included.