Officials Talk Too Much To Coaches....
 

Andy Katz's Daily Word: Why do officials and coaches converse so much? - ESPN

Interesting read.

My two favorite quotes.....
 

As has been stated on this Forum many times.......



"My perspective is that all a referee should do is answer a question in a courteous and respectful manner," Adams said. "Don't have to carry on an ongoing dialogue."

"I think we're much better off when referees just ref and when coaches just coach," Adams said.

and yet the officials who won't carry on the dialogue with the coaches are accused of being unapproachable and don't get hired.

How much is too much?
 

Certainly is a very fine line.

I agree with those statements, but coaches are the ones that like to talk about everything. They want an explanation about everything. And when you do not talk to them or ignore them they take offense to that. My goal as an official is never to have those conversations all the time, but some coaches insist on it.

In my game over the weekend where I was on TV, one of the coaches wanted to talk to me about everything no matter what happened or where it happened. He even got upset with me about a call that my partner made and wanted me to explain it as I was a T and my partner was the L. The coach wanted to know why he (my partner) called an out of bounds play instead of a foul. Coaches insist on these engagements, not officials. And you can even see a time on the video where the coach starts talking to me and I had nothing to say but respond to his questions.

I would rather go through games and hardly talk to a coach unless there is a really unusual situation they need some explanation for.

Peace

Agreed
 

Had a JV Coach this yr who really took offense to me not stopping to chat, "when he wanted to have a conversation about one of my calls." There was just no time.

I caught up to him a bit later during a foul shot for a short chat when I was T. But, I almost had to pop/whack/T him up (whatever your term is) for his antics and comments for me "not stopping." Silly.

The job that we have to do doesn't lend itself to absolutes. It's impossible to make hard and fast, one-size-fits-all directives to cover all situations. Sometimes it's better to talk; some times it's better to walk. The officials who are noted for being good game-managers know when to try to do something that fits the situation that they are looking at in that particular point of time. And even then, they'll still run into a situation where all the game management skills in the world can't stop the Huggins' of the world from going off and having to be dealt with.

Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. And that's the same at any level.

JMO.

Always ...
 

It's always best to walk the talk.

Absolutely 100 percent agree. Couldn't be said better.

[QUOTE=JRutledge;664442]I agree with those statements, but coaches are the ones that like to talk about everything. They want an explanation about everything. And when you do not talk to them or ignore them they take offense to that. My goal as an official is never to have those conversations all the time, but some coaches insist on it.

Peace[/QUOTE/]

Couldn't agree more. We don't initiate the conversations. I will say I was mildly impressed that Katz didn't throw all of the blame on the officials and noted that the coaches are part of the problem. I also agreed that the official in the Huggins incident should not have been in the huddle like that. Talk outside the huddle quickly and get away.

[quote=doubleringer;664738]That's easy to say. I had a coach who wanted to come across the court screaming at me about a no call during a timeout. I could stand there, let him yell for a second or two and then whack him OR I could walk over, get him back to his huddle, let him talk (since I'm not across the court anymore), etc., and maybe defuse the situation Which choice is the right one? It depends, IMO. Either way I'm unapproachable OR I look like the coach's minion.

I do know this, if I walk over there I will allow a bit more than I would long distance precisely because of the perception that me coming over looks like I'm coming over to get him if I call a technical foul. He doesn't get free reign to call me a MF or anything like that, though. If he really earns one, I would do exactly as Stuart did. I would walk away out of the huddle, go to midcourt, and assess a technical foul. Patient whistle and all that.... :D

You can't be afraid to give a technical foul or eject someone, but you need to make sure the penalty fits the crime. I do consider how the report will read because I have to file one for every coach technical foul in this state.

[QUOTE=RichMSN;664768]Agreed - BUT - the coach doesn't get any extra rope. I will call the 2nd T using the same criteria as the first. He doesn't get "extra" leeway because he has already been WHACKED once.

[quote=chartrusepengui;664773]You may have missed my point. EVERY technical is (should be) a strong technical, one which you will write up and everyone from the AD to the commissioner to the state office will look at and say, "Yeah, that's a technical."

If a coach gets a first technical, in my mind it's over. Clean slate except for the seatbelt rule, no carry-over. I'm sure many will disagree, but a coach shouldn't be afraid to disagree or ask questions just cause he got whacked earlier. Some coaches don't understand that -- I whacked one earlier this season and he asked me at halftime on the way off if it would affect him the second half -- I'd never met him before -- and I said, "nope, that's all over with" and meant it.

Sorry I misinterpreted your post. I understand now and agree with what you are saying. I don't "hold a grudge" or have a quick whistle on a second T. I try and handle them all exactly the same. That said - I haven't had more than 1 or 2 occasions in 25+ years of officiating where I've felt I've had to go to the second T. Usually 1 is all it takes.

Oh? Seeing no one else so far has been able to tell us exactly why Stuart went into the huddle, could you please share with us then the real reason why Stuart went into the huddle?

I know that Katz asked the exact same question in his column also. Maybe you can let him know too.

Seeing as you're so positive that he was wrong to do that, I'd really like to know the real reason for Stuart making such an egregious error in judgment.

Thanks in advance for sharing your inside information with us.