Coaches comments

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by zebraman

As others have said, I doubt if most coaches have any idea of what "out of position" means. If he said that officials who don't hustle are a pet peeve of his, I'm sure that most officials would agree with that one.

As far as being ignored, I wonder if he understands the difference between a reasonable question and a monologue of "three, three, three" or "that's a reach"?

trust me,he knows.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by fullor30

trust me,he knows.

Having done both for many, many years, I tend to agree very much with the coach's two pet peeves. I KNOW where the officials are SUPPOSED to be.

To satisfy the coach's pet peeves (and mine), an official has to hustle up and down the floor to be in the best position position he/she can be (sometimes we still get straight-lined as Shaqs points out, but it should not be a common theme). Secondly, as Jurassic points out, a SHORT explanation as to what a referee saw (What did he do? -- IF not requested on EVERY FOUL or violation) is appropriate. It is as simple as, "Coach, he was holding a jersey with his backside hand" will generally suffice. If it goes any further to "no he didn't" I will just keep going. Some officials at that point want to prove their manhood/womanhood by getting into a lengthy (and game interupting discussion). Both from a coaching AND from an officiating standpoint, I see little point in such discussions. Answer and move on.

When an official simply runs away PRIOR to answering my initial question, I get the impression that the official was not confident in his/her call and has no real explanation. I know MANY officials who employ this technique. I don't like to see them when I arrive to coach AND I don't like to see them when I arrive to referee.

Hustle, get in position, do the best you can and quickly explain calls that a coach may not have had a good angle to see and move on.

Just my $.02, again.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Having done both for many, many years, I tend to agree very much with the coach's two pet peeves. I KNOW where the officials are SUPPOSED to be.

To satisfy the coach's pet peeves (and mine), an official has to hustle up and down the floor to be in the best position position he/she can be (sometimes we still get straight-lined as Shaqs points out, but it should not be a common theme). Secondly, as Jurassic points out, a SHORT explanation as to what a referee saw (What did he do? -- IF not requested on EVERY FOUL or violation) is appropriate. It is as simple as, "Coach, he was holding a jersey with his backside hand" will generally suffice.

Don't you get that short explanation when the foul was reported? "White, 22, holding".

My problem with the majority of these "questions" is that I don't really believe that the coach typically really doesn't know what they did (or at least what the official thinks they did) - after all, didn't I just come to the table and say what they did?

They just want the chance to complain about the call, and the smarts ones know that if they pretend they are on Jeopardy, they can justify the complaint as a "question".

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Don't you get that short explanation when the foul was reported? "White, 22, holding".

My problem with the majority of these "questions" is that I don't really believe that the coach typically really doesn't know what they did (or at least what the official thinks they did) - after all, didn't I just come to the table and say what they did?

They just want the chance to complain about the call, and the smarts ones know that if they pretend they are on Jeopardy, they can justify the complaint as a "question".

Yeah, well, so what? If a coach asks what the kid did, why does it hurt to tell him that the player gave a two handed push in the back to clear space for the rebound (or whatever)?

Maybe many of you didn't have this experience, but my progression as an official started with me having a hard time looking the table in the eye when reporting a foul. Then it was easier for me to do that, but talking to a coach about it would be difficult. Eventually, I got to the point where I'd be happy walking up and having the discussion -- confident in what I saw and why I called what I did.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Yeah, well, so what? If a coach asks what the kid did, why does it hurt to tell him that the player gave a two handed push in the back to clear space for the rebound (or whatever)?

It doesn't - except when it just leads to another question. And another. And another.

Or it leads to "Why didn't you call that when their guy did it last time".

I don't have any problem answering legit questions - but I am generally pretty skeptical of the number of "questions" that are actually legit.

Which is why I think coaches have the "hate it when they ignore me" pet peeve - sometimes we are ignoring them because we don't think their comments or questions warrant a response. At least that is why *I* sometimes ignore them.

I am not overly satisfied with this response on my part though - sometimes I think I should be more pro-active about getting coaches to quit chirping about the officiating when it becomes persistent.

On the other hand, I don't really buy into the idea that I *should* respond to their chirping - that seems like it is just validating them trying to coach me by me responding. Why should I have to explain my calls to the coach? Does he need to explain to me why he is running a 2-3 zone instead of a box and 1?

I haven't really come up with a good solution yet that works for me. I suspect that I will be required to yack it up with coaches more though, but that will be a response to the realities of the job and how games are assigned, rather than any actual valid reasoning for why coaches need to have calls explained to them.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Berkut

It doesn't - except when it just leads to another question. And another. And another.

Or it leads to "Why didn't you call that when their guy did it last time".

I don't have any problem answering legit questions - but I am generally pretty skeptical of the number of "questions" that are actually legit.

Which is why I think coaches have the "hate it when they ignore me" pet peeve - sometimes we are ignoring them because we don't think their comments or questions warrant a response. At least that is why *I* sometimes ignore them.

I am not overly satisfied with this response on my part though - sometimes I think I should be more pro-active about getting coaches to quit chirping about the officiating when it becomes persistent.

On the other hand, I don't really buy into the idea that I *should* respond to their chirping - that seems like it is just validating them trying to coach me by me responding. Why should I have to explain my calls to the coach? Does he need to explain to me why he is running a 2-3 zone instead of a box and 1?

I haven't really come up with a good solution yet that works for me. I suspect that I will be required to yack it up with coaches more though, but that will be a response to the realities of the job and how games are assigned, rather than any actual valid reasoning for why coaches need to have calls explained to them.

Higher levels require a bit more talking, but some officials who are very successful say little while others are Ed Hightower (I just saw him yesterday and he was talking to the coaches, especially Bo Ryan, the whole game).

As others have said, I'll go into a game willing to answer questions, but as soon as I get the "call it at the other end" response, I'll say to myself "well, you tried, not going to be a repeat of this" and then stay more distant on purpose. A coach really does direct, for me, how approachable I am. A warm handshake can turn to a cold shoulder before long, and it's always the coach that determines how it all goes.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

A coach really does direct, for me, how approachable I am.

This.

I am more than willing to answer a coach's questions throughout the game if he's willing to listen to the answer. I've had much better outcomes in games when I engage the coaches and vice versa than if I ignore coaches.

I will even acknowledge a chirper sometimes, even if it's just a shake of the head, to let him know I heard his comment. Many times that stops, or at least curbs, the chirping.

But, bottom line, I've found more success in actively engaging coaches who ask questions early and letting their responses guide the level of engagement with them through the rest of the game. This works for me, but I also know it doesn't for everyone.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Or it leads to "Why didn't you call that when their guy did it last time".

"Because they bought foul insurance and you didn't."

[26 Year Gap]

A lot of off-ball fouls will generate questions, because new officials do not have a monopoly on ball-watching. Especially, the team control fouls. But if a coach is not going to play Jeopardy and make the request in the form of a question, I am not going to engage in a debate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Don't you get that short explanation when the foul was reported? "White, 22, holding".

My problem with the majority of these "questions" is that I don't really believe that the coach typically really doesn't know what they did (or at least what the official thinks they did) - after all, didn't I just come to the table and say what they did?

They just want the chance to complain about the call, and the smarts ones know that if they pretend they are on Jeopardy, they can justify the complaint as a "question".

That's why he put the caveat, "If not requested on every foul or violation." You're right, you can normally tell which ones have legitimate questions as opposed to the chronic whiners. I'll answer the first group, and the second group generally gets one answer from me. How they respond to the answer will also clue me in as to which group they belong.

If they nod their head, or say ok (or any body language that gives that signal), we're good and they will get another explanation if asked politely later in the game.

It's kind of like the NFL instant replay rule.

1. There is a limited number of times per game that they can do it.
2. Successful exchanges will give them extra opportunities.
3. Unsuccessful exchanges burn opportunities.

A difference is, if the exchange is sufficiently hostile (they want to turn it into an argument), I reserve the right to refuse further questions at my discretion.