Questioning my T

[BBall_Junkie]

Sorry coach....Hand checking does not always create a "tremendous advantage" and in many cases it creates no advantage... If it doesn't create an advantage it wont be called by me or my crew. Sorry coach, but I am not out there to blow my whistle when it isn't needed (the athletes don't want that, the fans don't want that, officiating supervisors don't want it and almost every coach out there doesn't want it). The last thing I want to do it take away two points with a whistle and comeout with a "tweet-- hand check-- no basket" and if you are honest with yourself... you don't want it either.

Its knowing when an advantage is created is what seperates the good officials from the average to poor ones.

Get snippy all you want, it doesn't change anything.

[JoeT]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

Sorry coach....Hand checking does not always create a "tremendous advantage" and in many cases it creates no advantage... If it doesn't create an advantage it wont be called by me or my crew. Sorry coach, but I am not out there to blow my whistle when it isn't needed (the athletes don't want that, the fans don't want that, officiating supervisors don't want it and almost every coach out there doesn't want it). The last thing I want to do it take away two points with a whistle and comeout with a "tweet-- hand check-- no basket" and if you are honest with yourself... you don't want it either.

Its knowing when an advantage is created is what seperates the good officials from the average to poor ones.

Get snippy all you want, it doesn't change anything.

The NFHS disagrees with you. You're the one who said "per the rule book" then made up your own verbiage. I quoted the NFHS. If my player is going to the hoop with a hand on his or her hip, you're supposed to call it. The more you don't, the worse the game gets.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by JoeT

The more you don't, the worse the game gets.

Wrong. The game goes on as normal, we have flow and the kids get to play. I have never (in many many years calling at just about every level) had a game go bad when I didn't call contact that did not create an advantage. Advantage/ Disadvantage is covered in the rulebook... If you want rulebook robby to call your games (and not apply judgement), have points taken off for such trivial contact and have your players foul out for the same more power to you... I can assure you that you are in the minority.

I am done with this. Since you are a coach and must always have the last word here is your chance... somehthing tells me you dont get it anyway.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by JoeT

The NFHS disagrees with you. You're the one who said "per the rule book" then made up your own verbiage. I quoted the NFHS. If my player is going to the hoop with a hand on his or her hip, you're supposed to call it. The more you don't, the worse the game gets.

Refereeing advantage/dis-advantage sometimes allows players to play through some of this contact. If the NFHS book was used in its literal form without exception many games would turn into free-throw shooting contests. This is exception not the rule. Without knowing the level of skill of your team and the competition first hand I can't say for sure. But on a particular night its something to consider.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by j51969

Refereeing advantage/dis-advantage sometimes allows players to play through some of this contact. If the NFHS book was used in its literal form without exception many games would turn into free-throw shooting contests. This is exception not the rule. Without knowing the level of skill of your team and the competition first hand I can't say for sure. But on a particular night its something to consider.

Forgive me, but I'm going to pick on your wording just a bit here. A literal use of the rule book requires us to determine if an advantage has been gained by the contact. Look at the definitions of "foul" and "incidental contact" in the rule book, and this becomes clear.

The dilemma is that different officials have different ways of determining an advantage. While the NFHS may want us to use a lower threshold for hand checks than for rebounds, there still needs to be some determined advantage (impeding, holding, pushing, etc.) in order for there to be a foul.

I picked on this wording because of the common phrase, "a foul is a foul." While it's a truism, it's a misleading one that assumes "contact" = "foul," and that officials have to figure out which fouls to call. That's not the case; we have to determine which contact is a foul, and call all the fouls.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Forgive me, but I'm going to pick on your wording just a bit here. A literal use of the rule book requires us to determine if an advantage has been gained by the contact. Look at the definitions of "foul" and "incidental contact" in the rule book, and this becomes clear.

The dilemma is that different officials have different ways of determining an advantage. While the NFHS may want us to use a lower threshold for hand checks than for rebounds, there still needs to be some determined advantage (impeding, holding, pushing, etc.) in order for there to be a foul.

I picked on this wording because of the common phrase, "a foul is a foul." While it's a truism, it's a misleading one that assumes "contact" = "foul," and that officials have to figure out which fouls to call. That's not the case; we have to determine which contact is a foul, and call all the fouls.

Not a problem. I like your explanation better than mine. I am just simple

[Back In The Saddle]

I'm late to the party, and it looks like the fun has already begun.

Some random thoughts:

• The T was clearly deserved. No question.
• Negative behavior never lengthens a leash. If you allow a coach some extra leash in a certain situation, you still decide where the leash ends.
• Coaches are grown ups, and must act that way. Our empathy or sympathy must never extend to allowing a coach to behave badly.
• Snaqs is right, address behavior early. Early, a quiet word is often sufficient. One example: I worked a freshman tourney last weekend where a team was getting blown out in the third quarter. The coach, who had not previously been a problem, began to referee. I slid over next to her at the next opportunity and quietly asked, "Coach, are we okay?" Then I listened to her reply (which was not very reassuring). But she went back to coaching and that was the end of that. Sometimes it really is that easy.
• An official must develop a clear, comprehensive philosophy for managing blowouts. Knowing already how we will call the game, control the game and handle the coaches in a blowout both improves the game and reduces anxiety about whether to whack a coach.
• You write as though the crew chose which fouls to call based on managing the number of foul calls rather than managing the game. It is best to pre-game specifically where the crew will draw its various lines, then consistently call to those lines from the very first play. By the first quarter break the participants should know that tonight you're allowing "x" but not allowing "y".
• If you worry about calling "too many" hand checks, don't stop calling, start talking. Tell the kid, "Hands off!". If he does it again, call the foul then find him at a dead ball and tell him, "I'm trying to keep your number out of the book, help me out here." He'll either adapt or he will soon bench himself. Either way you will have called only the fouls necessary to clean up the game.

As always, just my $0.02

[Jimmie24]

Don't question your T. Coach deserved it long before he got it. A sitting coach is usually a very quiet coach. A quiet coach makes for a nicer game. A smart coach realized where the officials line is drawn and will not cross it. If he chooses to cross it, then he knows what the expected result is.

The best thing any official can do is communicate with the coaches and players. Tell the players to get their hands off. Call a few early, they will get the picture and start playing without their hands. Let the coaches know when he is pushing the line. But still talk to them. I agree some coaches do talk down and seem as if they want to try and pull something over on you. No matter, treat and talk to them as you want to them to treat and talk to you. Until they cross the line. Give them the T before you become emotionally involved. You will feel better about it.

I love how a coaches defense is always "well have you coached?" Does that really matter? Lots of great officials have never coached before. Doesn't mean that they love the game any less. Doesn't mean that they know the game any less. Coaches and officials need to realize that it isn't about them. This game is all about the kids. We can play without coaches, or at least another will step in, but can you play without the officials? Mutual respect goes a long ways.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Yes, I have. Before I began reffing, I coached for three years in a intra-collegiate basketball league. It, basically, was a glorified intramural league, but with tryouts and a draft and a lot more structure than your usual intramural league.

And I'd have to say that I never viewed the officials the way I do now. I knew nothing about advantage/disadvantage, I was unaware of all the intricacies of officiating, the rules I thought I knew and actually didn't, etc etc.

In other words, I thought I knew a whole lot about officiating until I put on a shirt and whistle and stepped out onto the court. Then I found out I knew squat.

I respect coaches to a point. I don't think, for the most part (emphasis added), coaches at my level (JV and below) respect officials. They don't respect what our job actually is (as opposed to what they perceive it to be). They don't respect our calls. They don't respect us as human beings, from the way they treat us (yelling, rolling their eyes, stomping their feet, talking down, etc etc). Oh, they do during the coaches meeting, and they smile and shake hands, but once the ball is tipped they become totally different people.

95% or more of coaches, I would say, have never taken the time to not just dig into the rule book, but spend a summer reffing in their local rec league to see what it's like. So they don't know what it's like on the other side of the court. They don't know what it's like to work your ace off learning the rules and applying them on the court and doing your damndest to make sure you call a fair game and still be looked at and treated like you just killed someone's children because you dared to call a foul on someone. And they never will. And that's our job to deal with that fact.

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm going to go out on a very large limb here and say that, in my opinion, having done both, that officials have a much harder job, within the context of one basketball game, than do coaches.

Your job as a coach is to maximize the play of your team.

My job is to be judge, jury and executioner (in some cases). It is our job, as officials, to be God out on the court. We decide what is a foul and what is not.

Furthermore, coaches think it's their job to do whatever humanly possible in order to (I'm trying to think of the most respectful word here) influence the officials into calling a game that gives an advantage to their team. Whether conscious or subconscious, most coaches do this with what they talk to us about, when and how they scream at us, and their behavior in general.

The best coach, to me, is a coach who asks me questions calmly and respectfully, or doesn't talk to me at all. I make a habit of initiating as little communication as possible with coaches because I've found that it has a way of biting me in the behind. So, in that way, my job becomes harder.

Sad thing is, those coaches are very hard to find.

Boy, I'm really starting to sound like a hardened cynic, aren't I?

Originally Posted by fiasco

Well, I do my part, but I'm considered T-happy.

From reading your responses, I see somebody who today is where I was not that long ago. I realize that to some degree you're venting your general frustrations at some coaches and their "feedback". But I also see signs of having the wrong attitude and being the victim of your own lack of skills.

If you are going to make this thing work for you, you have got to do a few things well that you don't seem to be doing very well right now. You've got to be able to communicate effectively with everybody involved: partners, players, coaches, table crew, everybody. That especially means engaging (not necessarily confronting) coaches when there is an issue, not running away from them. You've got to be able to call the obvious and what matters, control the game, and do it all consistently. You're going to have to be around a while, so people have time to learn to trust you. And you've got to exude a positive attitude and show due respect toward the game and each of the participants.

You're off to a good start, and you've made some important discoveries, including that most coaches don't know the rules very well. So, now how do you take what you have learned and what you can now do and use your knowledge and skills to bridge that gap? Because the game is about them, not about us. We're just the facilitators.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

. . . the common phrase, "a foul is a foul." While it's a truism, it's a misleading one that assumes "contact" = "foul," and that officials have to figure out which fouls to call. That's not the case; we have to determine which contact is a foul, and call all the fouls.

Perfectly worded!

Once we have determined the contact is a foul, we need to call it even if it causes the offended player to lose an opportunity for a wide open lay-up.

[Scratch85]

Advantage/Disadvantage; I have heard this so much lately that it hardly makes sense to me anymore. I think we have taken it too far and use it too frequently to avoid making calls that should be made. Or we use it as a bailout when we fail to make a call that we feel we should have made.

Most of the time when I hear it used, it is interpreted only as creating a disadvantage for the offensive player. It is rarely referenced when a defensive player gains an advantage. As in a hand being used on an opponent acting as an aid in starting or stopping. It doesn't disadvantage the offense by limiting their movement, but is does advantage the defense by aiding their movement.

I'm not taking sides concerning the posters involved in this discussion but I think we as officials need to seriously think how we interpret Advantage/Disadvantage and "see the entire play." I think, as a group, we frequently incorrectly overuse each concept.