It lasted until Game 9

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

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.

I'm not sure what the fed was thinking. They took us table side in two-man and opposite in three-man. The left and right hands are working against each other it seems.

Frankly, I like table side on personal fouls, but I'm pretty sure that goes out the window on Ts.

[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