![]() |
Coaches comments
A very respected HS coach in our area was talking to a fellow ref/friend at a Christmas tourney and my friend asked him to name his pet peeves about officials and he said he only had two. Officials who ignore him and officials making calls out of position. He rarely had any beef with calls as he understands it's not easy.
I guessed the first one as it came up up in a survey several years ago as coaches main concerns regarding officials. I can certainly empathize with being out of position concern. As officials, we also have a problem with partners possibly guessing on calls as they are straightlined or making calls out of their primary. Reiterates the philosophy of don't guess, if you missed it, so be it, but don't guess. I may run my own survey as I bump into coaches in stands taking in a game. |
I'm becoming more and more comfortable with letting something go if I didn't see it properly (straightlined). When asked, I've been able to simply tell the coach I couldn't see and and tell him why. It's worked.
|
Out of position is a really broad term. It would interesting to hear exactly what he means by out of position.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fair enough. |
Quote:
Coachs don't watch the officials when play is going on. They watch their team and their opponents, just like they're supposed to. The only time they notice us is when we blow a whistle or they think we should be blowing a whistle. I doubt very much that most coaches actually know what position we should be in relative to ball location. As for the ignoring part, coaches do deserve a (short) answer to a question imo. What they don't deserve is a long discussion holding up play or an argument about a call or non-call. |
Quote:
He keeps smiling. Kinda creepy. :D |
From The Dark Side ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, "out of position" may mean an official further away making a call (even if it happens to be his call). |
Quote:
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"? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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". |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
During pre-game, I always tell coaches that if they have a question, we will be happy to address it on a break, but not during play. We don't want them distracting us from what's happening on the court.
About three years ago, I had a coach yell a question about a call to me while his team was shooting an uncontested layup. Of course, I ignored him. At the next timeout, he asked my why I didn't answer him, since his team was on a break! Yes, he was kidding. I even thought that was funny. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39am. |